Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

British Prisoners of War

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Sir Michael Marshall: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject and I appreciate the support of many hon. Members who have been active in the matter.
My concern about deductions from British prisoners of war in Germany and Italy between 1939 and 1945 arises from the evidence that I have received over many years from my constituent, a former Royal Air Force officer, Group Captain Alec Ingle. His complaint to the Secretary of State for Defence was put in formal terms in December 1995 and is based on the experience of RAF officers who were prisoners of war.
Group Captain Ingle also reflects the views of the Justice for Prisoners of War campaign, known as JPOW, which, having started with 30 members in the early 1980s, has now spread to cover the interests of several thousand British ex-prisoners of war in all three services in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I am drawing most especially on evidence from Group Captain Ingle and from several others in the campaign, including most notably Captain Hugo Bracken RN (retd.), a constituent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew).
The scale of the officers' complaints can perhaps best be related to the number of prisoners of war in German hands in May 1945: 6,000 Army, 2,500 Royal Air Force and 400 Royal Navy and Royal Marines. I am also aware of the parallel complaints relating to more than 4,000 protected personnel, including officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, chaplains, ambulance drivers, stretcher bearers and others who were protected under the terms of the 1929 Geneva International Red Cross convention.
The activities of Mr. G. W. King have been especially notable in the protected personnel lobby. His correspondence with Lord Freyberg has provided the most useful up-to-date assessment of the current Government actions to handle the complaints. In a letter to Mr. King dated 3 December 1996, the Minister's assistant private secretary said:
The review which is now in hand is considering the whole matter again, re-visiting all aspects of the subject, re-examining the conclusions of the 1980s work and examining the points and evidence submitted then and since. You and others have raised many points of considerable detail and these are being considered afresh both in respect of Officer Prisoners of War and of protected personnel.

Naturally, I welcome the commitment to a fundamental review that I believe is suggested by the terms of that letter, but it is right to remind the House of some of the difficulties and unfairnesses that have led to the Secretary of State's decision to reopen those matters.
The main research efforts in the early 1980s, referred to in the letter, relate to the report prepared under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), in his then capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Defence, for the Royal Air Force. My right hon. Friend outlined the Ministry's findings in a statement and a report laid before the House on 31 October 1980—and I am glad to see him here today.
I need not dwell on the report at this stage, because it is currently the subject of a wholesale review, and I recognise that there were genuine difficulties at the time at which it was prepared, in the lack of complete information and in the nature of a report prepared in only six weeks, which obviously imposed limitations. I am also aware of the evidence that has been produced since that time and that has led my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton to make submissions to Ministers.
There are, however, one or two aspects of the Pattie report that usefully summarise the nature of the problem. It was correct in identifying the central complaint as relating to the money withheld in the United Kingdom on account of pay that former British prisoners of war were supposed to have received from the detaining authorities in Germany and Italy when, for long periods, they either received nothing or were paid in effectively worthless currency.
Moreover, many former prisoners of war contended that they had not been given an opportunity to reclaim those moneys on repatriation. Perhaps the unkindest cut of all was the fact that the vast majority of them had to pay income tax on money that was never received.
In rejecting the case for further repayments of deductions, the Pattie report concluded:
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Study Group had little alternative but to reach the conclusions it did. That is not to say, however, the Government are in any way unsympathetic to the problems of former POWs. The Government feel, therefore, that rather than continue to rake over the remaining evidence from 1945, a more constructive response would be to consider whether additional assistance could be made available. These possibilities are now being studied and will be the subject of a further statement.
That was the 1980 statement. That brings me the nub of the argument that I believe it is right to deploy today.
Since that statement and the publication of the report, substantial detailed evidence has been submitted to the Ministry of Defence and to others—to whom I shall refer—which shows the scale of the deductions and the limited nature of refunds. Global figures are available for the amounts deducted and the amounts refunded. The scale of those deductions came as a surprise to me as I began to examine these matters. For those in Germany, the average deduction was about 30 per cent. of net pay, and for those in Italy 65 per cent.
Years of wrangling following the publication of the Pattie report ensued before the MOD accepted that only
approaching two-thirds of the deductions had been refunded".
I must add that my constituent and others in the JPOW campaign believe that a more realistic estimate would be between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.
Even accepting the MOD's one third estimate, that puts the shortfall at more than £1 million in 1945 money, which would be more than £20 million today—a sum which,


incidentally, does not include interest. The additional assistance referred to in the Pattie report has not been forthcoming, other than to a limited extent in respect of hospital facilities.
It was against that background that I and other Members of both Houses of Parliament took up these issues on behalf of the JPOW campaign. Given the lack of progress in dealings with the Ministry of Defence, I approached the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who ruled that he was unable to consider these matters because his remit excluded Her Majesty's forces. Similarly, approaches to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration produced the response that it was unable to pursue this anomaly, despite what was being put about at that time in the report on the civil service and in the Bett report. On the detail of the arguments about deductions and repayments, the Select Committee for Defence felt unable to make this problem a subject for inquiry.
In pursuing some method of appeal, I eventually approached the Prime Minister, who advised me and my constituent that the only way in which an ex-service man could effectively pursue such matters was by formal request for redress of grievance to the Air Force Board of the Defence Council. Accordingly, on 11 December 1995, my constituent wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is the head of the Air Force Board, asking him to authorise the setting up of an inquiry. With that letter, he submitted considerable detail on behalf of the JPOW campaign. The evidence submitted not only highlighted some of the shortcomings of previous studies, but went into great detail. It covered matters such as the relevance of the Geneva convention, arrangements for receiving returning prisoners of war, communal funding—which was gathered voluntarily, although it was, in effect, compulsory—within prisoner of war camps, rates of reimbursement of pay, MOD gifts to relevant charities, rates of exchange used to calculate pay deductions and many other matters. I take it—indeed, I earnestly hope—that these matters will be covered in the full review promised in the letter to the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association last December.
I must, however, voice my concern about the time taken to complete the present inquiry. Following my constituent's formal complaint in December 1995, it was not until spring last year that the general inquiry was authorised. Since then, inquiries by written parliamentary question and informal contact have given little indication of how long the current inquiry will take. Naturally, I fully support the need for a thorough inquiry. I know of the personal interest of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, with his background as an ex-regular Army officer. I know, too, of the personal interest of my noble Friend Lord Howe, who chairs the current inquiry. However, I must repeat my concern about a process that looks likely to take the best part of a year. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister understands the feelings of all the prisoners of war who have pursued these matters since 1945, and in detail since the Pattie report was published more than 16 years ago.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for assurances on a number of points. Will he confirm that sufficient resources have been made available to ensure the early completion of the review? My understanding is that two senior civil servants have been charged with this task under the general

direction of Lord Howe, and that they are undertaking the work part time while carrying out other duties as part of their responsibilities for historical research. The Minister's assurances on that point are of the utmost importance.
May I also ask my hon. Friend to tell us whether the working party intends to take up the repeated offers from some of those involved in the JPOW group, who have carried out detailed research on the records at Kew and elsewhere? They have offered to meet officials. Surely their input could help to expedite the completion of this work.
Will my hon. Friend give some hope and reassurance regarding the future arrangements for handling the complaints of ex-service men? He will be aware that this matter runs wider than the problems of former prisoners of war, and he must realise that in the current climate of opinion—in which strong cases are advanced for an independent mechanism to review the affairs of public officials—it is difficult, in cases such as the one that I am raising today, to justify the activities of a Department acting as judge and jury in its own court. I acknowledge the special needs of serving personnel, but these cases of ex-service men require urgent attention.
I shall let the last part of my appeal to the Minister rest with my constituent, Group Captain Ingle. He and others have taken a generous approach, and he speaks for the vast majority of former prisoners of war. They recognise the difficulties—the absence of detailed records in every case, tracing the next of kin, and dealing with cases of ex-prisoners of war who have sadly died. They suggest that the Government should—indeed, could—make a generous contribution to service charities, so that money could be made available to the most deserving ex-prisoners of war and their families.
I urge my hon. Friend, in what little time remains in this extended season of good will, to give his assurance that this matter will be given sympathetic and detailed consideration. I also urge him to confirm that the findings of his Department's review will be made available to the House and to Parliament as a whole in the very near future.

Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have this opportunity to support the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) in his efforts to ensure that something is done about the injustice that appears to have been perpetrated. I congratulate him on his struggle to bring the matter to the attention of the House and of a wider public, and I hope that his efforts will be successful in the near future. I am happy to say that although this is by no means a party political matter, I am supported by my hon. Friends and certainly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of my party, who takes particular interest in such matters because of his background in defence.
It appears that there has been an injustice. I freely confess that I knew little of the matter until recently when I was approached by a constituent, of whom more later, who is himself affected and who has been involved in the Justice for Prisoners of War campaign for some time. He provided me with a considerable file on what has gone before but, not least because we heard much about it in the previous speech, I shall not repeat it. The points have been well made already. One point that has not yet been brought out is that it is hard to find another country that has treated its ex-prisoners of war, at least in respect of deductions from pay, as poorly as we have. That should be reversed.
It was rightly said that the delays are far too long. The original working party took about six weeks. Perhaps that was too rapid, as some of its conclusions were not fully justified, but it was much quicker than the 15 months that the present inquiry looks like taking. I hope that the Minister will take due note of what the hon. Member for Arundel said about the need to ensure that the matter is brought to a conclusion as rapidly as possible in the best interests of justice. Justice should not be delayed; for the people involved, it has been delayed already for some 50 years. It is never too late to right a wrong, but the wrong should be righted as quickly as possible.
Will the Minister say how much the investigation has cost in terms of time and civil service resources? I imagine that the total costs so far must be considerable, given the time involved. Perhaps it would have been more sensible, and even cheaper, for the Government to have pressed ahead earlier with a fair donation to service charities rather than worrying too much about the degree of investigation necessary to prove the case.
The problem of escaping prisoners of war has not been fully brought out and involves an even greater injustice than those so far mentioned. It is the duty of all officers who are captured to try to escape. Many did so very bravely and some, sadly, lost their lives in the attempt. However, some officers who were recaptured, or who never got away but who had made attempts to escape, were fined for so doing. They never received the pay that was deducted in Britain in return for the pay that they were supposed to have received in their POW camps because they were fined equivalent amounts for trying to escape.
My constituent, Captain Freddie Harris, has a particularly interesting story. He had 832 days of deductions from his pay. During that period, he was a POW in Italy for 588 days. At the end of his time in a POW camp, the Italian Government fell, Italy came out of the war and he escaped. Many of those who escaped with him were recaptured by the Germans and put into other POW camps. Not unnaturally, their deductions continued. My constituent escaped and became a partisan and spent the rest of the war fighting on behalf of the allies. He was no longer a POW. Not unexpectedly, the British Government and his family did not know the full facts at the time. Communications were understandably not fully maintained between partisans and our Government. Fighting as a partisan, he was no longer being paid by enemy forces in the way that POWs were. In spite of that, the deductions in this country continued. He suffered a particular injustice, as did anyone who suffered a similar fate. I suspect that few others are involved; his case may even be unique. The injustice was that the deductions went on when he could not have been paid by the enemy because he was not in their hands and was seeking to evade capture during the whole of that time. Captain Harris is not aware of any return of deductions having been made to him since the war.

Mr. Steve Norris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have many friends in his constituency. I am happy to say that Freddie Hams is one of my oldest friends. I have known him for a great many years. I cannot stay until the end of the debate; I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends will forgive me. I want to place on record the extent to which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I knew little of the matter until it was brought to my attention by Freddie Harris. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's concern that a matter involving

natural justice for some brave people who endured much on behalf of succeeding generations should be brought to an honourable and equitable conclusion as soon as possible.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to expand on my remark that this was not a party political matter and he has demonstrated that. It is best illustrated by paying tribute to my predecessor but one, Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, who was for many years Member of Parliament for Newbury. He raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in 1982 and pressed the point on behalf of Freddie Harris and others. I am delighted to pay tribute to his efforts. Sadly, he died a few years ago. I end by quoting what he said in the House of Commons in that debate. I entirely agree with it and it illustrates that this is not a party political matter, as he was, in other times, an election opponent of mine. He said:
I believe that there is a debt of honour that a Government one day must pay to those brave men."—[Official Report, 9 February 1992; Vol. 17, c. 949.]
That debt should now be paid.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House my experience in learning about an issue that many people of my generation could not have begun to imagine would still exist: that 50 years after their service, British service men still have not had their wages and salaries paid. That idea would not occur to one unless one was told the tale in a constituency surgery. It says something about the apolitical nature of the process that hon. Members have come to the House today because of our experiences talking to our constituents.
I was approached by Graham King of the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association. I pay tribute to him for being remorseless in following up the concerns of people in his position. I had no idea that we were dealing with the tip of an iceberg. Numerous issues, specifically those concerning the pay of ex-prisoners of war, could have been brought before the House today.
It is probably helpful if I concentrate on one matter of particular concern to the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association, whose parliamentary representative I am. The position of "normal" officers and non-commissioned officers is relatively straightforward and does not cause a great deal of difficulty in practice. The difficulties arise in the case of protected personnel, whose history and status are strange.
As I understand it, under the Geneva convention, protected personnel were not imprisoned, but detained and, as a result, they were paid the salary of the equivalent rank of somebody working for the detaining power. For example, a corporal in the RAMC would be paid the same as his German equivalent if he was imprisoned in Germany.
The position seems to have changed towards the end of 1940, when the various powers agreed that their obligation under the Geneva convention to repatriate protected personnel would not work in the context of warfare. An agreement was reached that such personnel should no longer be detained, but imprisoned. While they were being detained, deductions were made—because, under the Geneva convention, they were detained personnel. It would seem logical that, when it was agreed that repatriation could not take place and that they would be imprisoned as


ordinary prisoners, the British Government should again assume responsibility for paying them—as if they were normal prisoners of war.
In practice, however, the Germans sometimes, but not always, continued to pay protected personnel. Clearly, the British Government of the day never appreciated the distinction; they did not understand that if the status of protected personnel was changed so that they were no longer being temporarily detained before repatriation, but imprisoned for the duration of the war, certain consequences would follow. The consequence that followed was that those personnel should be dealt with under the normal arrangements, but that never happened. I suspect that the position in relation to protected personnel is relatively clear—it is well worth having clarity on the issue. The details of POWs and their pay are labyrinthine, but the position in relation to protected personnel is pretty clear.
Given the personality of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I know that he will want to be helpful. I am also grateful to Lord Howe for the letters that he has been writing to me. To their credit, Ministers now seem to have a grip on the situation and want to bring about a successful conclusion. I have a little experience of the way in which Whitehall works and I did not always detect that sense of urgency or a commitment to producing a sensible result.
Some years ago, when I was a newly appointed Minister, I turned to my immediate superior for assistance because I could not resolve a certain conundrum. He said, "Let me put it this way: your job in this case is to render as much assistance as possible short of actual help." That principle sometimes serves one well in Government—it certainly did on that occasion—but it does not apply in the case that we are discussing. We must accept that, however the situation arose, however complicated it may be, however many years have passed since the event, it is straightforward: people serving in Her Majesty's armed forces were not paid the money due to them. However it came about, that is the position and it must be resolved.
I have no doubt that if the civil servants who are applying themselves to the task 50 years later wanted to find reasons to justify the status quo, they could easily do so. But those in Whitehall should not approach the issue in that way. However the problem arose and whatever its different complexities, British service men—both commissioned and non-commissioned—were shortchanged. Once that conclusion has been reached, how the problem arose is almost irrelevant to the task of sorting it out. Given the commitment of Ministers to deal with the matter properly, I have no doubt that it can be resolved.
When I first began my correspondence with Lord Howe, the timing of the review's result was open-ended. It was said that it was a difficult and complex matter and it was hard to say when the report would be made. It is a credit to Ministers that that nonsense has now stopped: we have been told that the review will be announced at the end of November. I was slightly nervous when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) say that the work was being carried out by two part-timers who doubtless had previously had other duties, but perhaps we need not worry too much about that.
The review has been a long time coming and a timetable for it has only recently been announced. We now know that the review must take place by the end of March. We must come up with the right answer—Ministers must commit themselves to saying that British service men were shortchanged and that the problem must be resolved. We do not want to hear red herrings such as the suggestion that the occupying—the detaining—powers should have taken action, but did not, and that all happened a long time ago. Whatever arrangements were established by the German Government of the day—and whether or not they defaulted on their responsibility—it is ultimately the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government of the day to look after service men and ex-service men. I have no doubt that if the problem is approached in that way we can achieve a sensible resolution.
I do not want to spread discord, but it is worth placing on record one other issue. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that one way of honouring the obligation would be to make a grant to a service charity. The National Ex-Prisoner of War Association does not believe that that approach is appropriate. I shall not detain the House today, but I see no insuperable difficulties in identifying which living service men—or conceivably their widows—were shortchanged and recompensing them accordingly. Our obligation is to individual serving officers and non-commissioned officers and cannot be discharged by giving a sum to a service charity. That detail can be decided in due course, once the principle has been dealt with.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend will know—as do those of us with constituencies where organisations such as the Burma Star Association, the SSAFA Forces Help and the legions are represented—that they feel strongly about the subject. I think that the suggestion has been put forward simply because those involved wanted a way out of the problem. They feel—as we all feel—that the problem has existed for far too long and must be resolved. It is that sense of frustration that has led to the suggestion.

Mr. Nicholls: I understand the sense of frustration highlighted by my hon. Friend. It would be all too easy for the system to say that there was a difficulty, but it all happened a long time ago—we shall fix on a relatively modest sum and distribute it to service charities. The first point of principle that must be understood is that service men were shortchanged. Those service men still exist and have some remarkably clear recollections; many of them own better documents than those on the shelves of Whitehall. While I understand how the frustration highlighted by my hon. Friend has come about, I do not think that we can turn to someone who is still living and who has a clear recollection of the fact that he was shortchanged and say, "It doesn't matter, old fruit—we shall give a sum of money to a service charity." That is not the answer, but it is important that we do not become overly exercised about that in today's debate as we must deal with the point of principle.
We are dealing with people who are very much in the twilight of their years and to whom the obligation of the Government of the day is total. We are dealing with people who, beyond a shadow of doubt, were shortchanged. The fact that that may have occurred owing to an historical accident, defaulting Germans or circumstances that existed


before many of us were born does not matter one jot. For the good image of the Government, of the system, of the way in which we all operate, it is essential that the obligation—which the House finally discharges—is not once again pushed under the carpet. The formula of providing all assistance short of actual help cannot be applied here.

Mr. Rod Richards: I represent the interests of my constituent Captain Frank Kernan, who was a prisoner of war during the last war. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) and congratulate him on the vigour with which he has pursued the case for Justice for Prisoners of War and on the lucid and cogent arguments that he has advanced on their behalf in this morning's debate.
No one here would dispute the fact that this is, for many reasons, an immensely complicated matter. In 1945, Europe was devastated by the war. Fifty years have passed, and it is natural that many of the records that existed then no longer exist, especially those connected with the Army and the Royal Air Force. We understand that.
The matter is also complicated because many of the records were not complete in the first place. They were not complete because many of the prisoners of war who were repatriated in 1945 had forms thrust upon them within a day or so of their return from having spent many years in prison. Many of those people spent four or five years as prisoners of war, and we understand that that was a very long time to be a prisoner, not knowing that the period of imprisonment was going to be four or five years—it could have been six, eight or 10 years. They faced an indefinite period of imprisonment and, having suffered that anxiety for such a long time, the state of mind of those young men on their return to this country must have been quite awesome.
As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) rightly said, we must also bear in mind the fact that officers have a duty to escape or to attempt to escape and to aid their fellow officers in their attempts to escape. Military personnel who were prisoners of war were very much operational and active throughout that time and their lives were in danger—there can be no doubt about that.
In replying to the debate, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise, as does every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate, that an injustice has been done. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, we owe those people a debt of honour, and my hon. Friend should, first, acknowledge that injustice has been done and, secondly, that compensation is due.
We all understand the difficulties involved in quantifying that compensation and in the repatriation of funds that were either not paid to or unfairly taken away from prisoners of war, but it is an important matter of principle that the Government should accept that an injustice has been done and that a sum of money is owed. How that sum of money is calculated and, indeed, what should be done with it is problematic, but it would be a first step if Her Majesty's Government were to acknowledge that payment in some form was due, either directly to former prisoners of war or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel said, indirectly in the form of a generous payment to charities that support service personnel and their widows. As my hon. Friend said, payments to such charities might not be universally

acceptable; nevertheless, it is important that the Government should accept that some payment is owed to those honourable people, who fought for us and who lost their liberty during the war.
People always look for a villain of the piece in Whitehall, so it may offer some comfort and succour to my hon. Friend the Minister if I say that I am not suggesting that the sum of money, when quantified, should be deducted from the current Ministry of Defence budget. The moneys were held by Her Majesty's Treasury, so when the sum has been calculated and my hon. Friend takes up the battle it is for the Treasury to repay what is owed because, in a sense, the money has been held on deposit and the Treasury has benefited from the interest over the past 50 years.
I understand the difficulties facing my hon. Friend and I know that there is a review going on, but it would be a step forward and it would offer some comfort to ex-prisoners of war and their families and friends and to Justice for Prisoners of War if Her Majesty's Government were to acknowledge that an injustice has been done and that a debt of honour is due.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I, too, want to congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on obtaining this debate. As you might recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had a debate of my calling just before December on reparations for prisoners of war who were held in the far east, so I have some interest in this matter.
My interest extends further than the technical question of moneys owed that should now be paid back, either by our Government to our prisoners of war or, as I believe, by the Japanese Government or the Japanese companies that used our prisoners of war as slave labourers. Unfortunately, the issue can get bogged down in legal niceties, which is I why I am delighted that it is the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is to reply to the debate. He is certainly no lawyer—neither a barrack-room lawyer, nor a Whips' lawyer nor a parliamentary lawyer—and I am sure that he will give as generous a response as he is allowed to give. Perhaps, as a former officer, he will even break free from the conventions of his civil service brief and, as urged by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), offer an apology and announce that the Government—if not his, perhaps a future one—will be generous in this respect.
The issue goes further than the points raised in the debate. At the annual Remembrance day celebrations, I am conscious of the fact that British fighting men and women have been in service constantly since 1945, so the issue is relevant not just to those who served in the second world war, although they are the subject of our debate. Since 1945, we have been involved in a seemingly endless list of armed engagements: Korea, the various decolonisation conflicts of the 1950s, the constantly running sore that is Northern Ireland, the Falklands war and the Gulf war, to name but a few.
The Minister will recall that he gave me an hour of his time to discuss the issue of those killed in the friendly fire incident in the Gulf war, which is still a sore for the nine British families who lost their young ones in that tragedy. In addition, the Minister—very decently—came to the


House not long ago to tell us that the line on the effect of chemical agents on soldiers in the Gulf war had had to be changed. Campaigns and pressure can work—the Ministry of Defence is not a monolith and we must continue to press such issues on an all-party basis.
Consideration may need to be given to the possibility of our having a Minister who has responsibility for veterans, such as there is in the United States and France—someone who has special regard for the needs of former soldiers, sailors and airmen, including those who were held in prisoner of war camps and those who, although they may not have received the honourable wounds of war, suffer now from illnesses as a result of what they were obliged to do without fully understanding what was at stake.
Those are the deeper issues involved. Next week, with other hon. Members, I shall meet survivors of Japanese prisoner of war camps to press their case further. The issue will not go away—it is a matter of honour. I urge the Minister to lift his eyes from the lawyers' brief in his folder, remember what it was like when he was in his own mess with his fellow officers and think of the honour of our country.

Mr. Roger Gale: I had not intended to participate in the debate, because other hon. Members have made the case much more effectively than I could. I have listened with great interest to the arguments, and I should like to reinforce a point that I made in an earlier intervention.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) suggesting that a sum of money should be given to the service charities to disburse among the claimants and causes which they feel should be the beneficiaries of the settlement of what is undoubtedly a debt of honour. I also listened with interest to the alternative argument, advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I can appreciate that prisoners of war who are still alive would feel a tremendous sense of injustice if they were not allowed to press their claims. As we all know, their numbers must be very small by now.
I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister might like to consider a halfway house solution. The reason behind the service charities suggestion—I know that this is true in my constituency—is that service organisations believe that, if each individual case is to be pursued, whatever the decision arrived at after the review there will still be interminable delay before the families entitled to the money actually get it.
My halfway house proposal is to allow the few who are still alive and wish to press their cases individually to make their claims accordingly; but the overriding and outstanding debt of honour to the many who are now dead should be paid via the service charities. If the Minister will examine this possibility, we may be able to have our cake and eat it.

Mr. Winston Churchill: I join in the congratulations already offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on bringing this

matter before the House and giving us the opportunity to debate it. I am particularly delighted that the Minister for the Armed Forces is here to respond, because I know of his instinctive sympathy for those who serve their country in circumstances of difficulty and danger—and who do so, as these prisoners of war did, with the highest distinction.
I fear, however, that before the debate my hon. Friend the Minister may have been to the Treasury tailors to be fitted up with a Treasury straitjacket. Still, like the hon. Member for Geneva—or, rather, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—I hope that he may yet break free from such Treasury bondage.
I start from the premise that it is never too late to rectify an injustice—and this is clearly a case of a demonstrable injustice. One of the proudest roles and traditions of this honourable House is the redress of grievances. Despite the passage of time, it is therefore entirely right that we should deal with this matter today. I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will respond positively to the compelling case made by several hon. Members today.
We are talking about tens of thousands of men who were taken prisoner and often held in intolerable conditions for periods between a matter of months and four years. They have, in effect, been cheated by the Government whom they served with such distinction and loyalty. I agree with those who have talked of a debt of honour; it is high time the House of Commons took steps to acquit it.

Dr. John Reid: I need not detain the House long on this issue. Adjournment debates are generally occasions for Back Benchers, but I should like to make one or two remarks.
Some people say that the House is at its best when it is packed and exhibits the theatricality of the circus, but I often find that it is at its best during Adjournment debates when it is not packed. We certainly learn more and discuss more. I have learnt a great deal today and in recent weeks from the cases that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on his dogged pursuit of the issue and on his success in obtaining this morning's debate.
A matter of principle is at stake. There is a compact between the British Government and forces of the Crown which underlies every operation, every strategic decision and the whole relationship between the armed forces and civilian society. When we ask men and women who serve in the forces of the Crown to undertake certain risks, an obligation is placed on Governments of any political persuasion to provide them not just with the resources to complete their tasks and to minimise their risks but to take care of them should they suffer as a result of their activities.
In this case, the obligation—60 years after some of these events took place—appears never to have been discharged. I fully understand the Government's difficulty in handling the matter—the Minister will face the usual difficulties of legality and bureaucracy. Moreover, there is the additional problem that, over decades, the evidence on which to base any judgment has become fragmented. What is more, many of the pieces of evidence will have been affected by the fog of war. The hon. Member for


Newbury (Mr. Rendel) cited a constituent who joined the partisans and who was therefore not in contact with the British Government during the relevant period—a perfect illustration of what I mean. This Minister has the reputation of occasionally swathing through the conventions of bureaucracy and firing from the substantial hip; I hope that he will apply himself on this occasion to following up the issue with gusto.
As for the charities suggestion, I make no comment except to say that this is certainly not a question of "charity", however the decision is ultimately reached. It is a question of justice and of honour. Every Member who has spoken has mentioned a debt of honour. That becomes all the more true when we realise that we live in an age of compensation and litigation. These people made tremendous sacrifices for their country and suffered all sorts of stress, often to the detriment of their health and quality of life. In an age when compensation seems to be claimed by everyone for everything, we are especially indebted to these people. It is not as if they voluntarily undertook these hardships: they were under orders to do what they did. It would therefore be a tragic irony if it were subsequently discovered that they were penalised for discharging their obligations under orders.
This is not a party political issue, as several hon. Members have pointed out. We may have our differences over how to approach veterans' affairs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, we believe there is a case for a veterans unit under a Minister; but there is no reason why this should not be a House of Commons matter. After all, the whole country owes the debt to the people involved. I therefore urge and, knowing him, expect the Minister to give the matter the speediest and most sympathetic consideration, so that, even after half a century, not one more day is lost than need be in resolving what appears to be both a tragic omission over the past six decades and a major debt of honour in the present circumstances.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on expertly and clearly articulating this difficult case. I thank him for raising again an issue that is of great concern, which has been well expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I also thank my hon. Friend for his usual courtesy and consideration in keeping us thoroughly informed of the way in which the campaign was developing and for allowing us to come to the debate properly prepared to try to satisfy—although I fear that I shall not be able to do so—some of the points that have been made.
It is good that that concern is felt broadly throughout the House. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whose concern for veterans is well known and who is playing an important role in the issue of Japan and reparations—on which I do not propose to touch this morning—made some important points.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke extremely well of his constituent, Freddie Harris. As a young officer in the Coldstream Guards, my father was involved in trying to convey arms to the partisans in Italy and in trying to enable as many British prisoners of war who had been released by the Italians as possible to be

guided back to our lines before the Germans could get them, so I have an added interest in the matter. I am anxious and interested to know more of Captain Harris's case, which I understand was raised in an Adjournment debate, but I have not had the privilege of reading that. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would make those papers available to me.
The hon. Member for Newbury said that Captain Harris had escaped and fought with the partisans, and the hon. Gentleman raised the interesting question of what quasi-legal situation that put Captain Harris in. I have no doubt that the Army, having a rule for everything, will find that it has a definition for that, but I am anxious to find out more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has been interested in this matter for some time, made a powerful speech. I am grateful for the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), and for the contribution from my hon. Friend and kinsman the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who spoke, as always, with such distinction and feeling for the cause and interests of people who served their country a few years ago, in the last war or before that. It is good, therefore, that this concern covers the spectrum of opinion not only in the House, but widely outside it. Some well-informed people take a close interest in this and I hope that they will follow our debate carefully.
We are concerned with people who were officer prisoners of war or protected personnel in German and Italian hands during the second world war—individuals who, under the international convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field, signed in Geneva in 1929, were not to be deemed prisoners of war if they fell into enemy hands. The status of "protected person" was granted not only to those engaged exclusively in the treatment of the wounded and sick and to chaplains, but to auxiliary nurses and stretcher bearers who were carrying out their duties when captured.
Thanks in part to the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel has pursued the issue, I am aware of the profound sense of grievance felt by some ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel about decisions taken during the war and in the immediate aftermath and about Defence Ministers' consideration of their concern in the early 1980s.
Those service men spent, in some cases, most of the war in captivity. Only last week, I met a young private soldier who was in the Gordon Highlanders and who was captured at Dunkirk. He went into a prisoner of war camp two days after he was captured and stayed locked up until 1945. What a terrible price to be paid by a young man in the prime and flower of his youth. There were many like him, although their experiences and hardships inevitably differed. Each has a different story to tell, depending on where they were held, whether they were repatriated during the war—as some of the sick and injured and some protected personnel were—whether they made successful escapes, whether they simply had to face endless hours of tedium, waiting for liberation by allied troops, or whether they faced the great uncertainty attached to capture.
For some of those men, the last months of the war were particularly turbulent. Moved on foot ahead of the advancing allied armies by the Germans, short of food,


sometimes badly or brutally treated and even mistakenly attacked by our own aeroplanes, some of them were liberated by Soviet forces and moved far behind enemy lines into Russia before being sent home. Although most could do little directly to affect the war's outcome, they continued to serve with dignity, to behave with courage and to face hardship and uncertainty with courage and fortitude.
Those captured early in the war had been taken while facing great odds. The protected personnel played a vital role in caring for our sick and wounded prisoners of war, and all played their part on the road to eventual victory. Therefore, as all hon. Members have said, we are concerned with not only personnel's military service, but their conduct and behaviour while prisoners of war.
We are debating the money deducted from the pay accounts in Britain of officer prisoners of war and of protected personnel. I have specifically mentioned officer prisoners of war and protected personnel in German and Italian hands because those held by the Japanese were refunded with all the deductions made in respect of payments that they should have received from the Japanese. This is not at issue, although the reasons for those refunds have been questioned.
The pay deductions that concern us today were made on the basis of the terms of two conventions signed in Geneva in 1929: that covering the care of the wounded and sick, to which I referred earlier, and the international convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Those set out the principles for the treatment of prisoners of war and captured non-combatants, which were developed into practical arrangements by various agreements made subsequently between the British Government and their German and Italian counterparts.
The deductions were made to offset payments that the officer prisoners of war and protected personnel were supposed to receive from the detaining power. Officers' payments were made because officers were not permitted to work in captivity and therefore to earn what could be used as "pocket money" to meet certain living expenses in the camps. Protected personnel received money from the detaining power because, under further agreements between the belligerent Governments, they had not been repatriated after capture, but stayed with our sick and wounded to care for them. For that work, they were to receive their pay from the detaining power at the equivalent rate for that power's own medical staff.
That was the theory. During the war, however, it became apparent from information from the camps that, although deductions were being made in Britain on the basis that the arrangements for payment by the detaining power were working, in some cases the reality was rather different. Arrangements with the detaining power were not always working as they should have been.
It was therefore decided to implement a policy of refunding some of the deductions when officer prisoners of war and protected personnel returned to Britain. The aim was to put the individual back in the position of having received, overall, his due pay, adding up what had been received or credited from the detaining power and what had been credited and paid in Britain.
A major element of the case put by those who have so cogently made representations to us—including, in lengthy submissions, Group Captain Ingle and Captain

Bracken, RN (retd.), of Justice for Prisoners of War, and Mr. King of the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association—questions the fairness of the deductions having been made in the first place. That is the general tenor of the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friends.
The representatives also question the exchange rates used to calculate the actual amounts deducted and refunded in respect of camp payments. They consider that they did not receive the overall value of their pay, and question the implementation and efficacy of the scheme to refund deductions. These are clearly serious matters.
A further issue, which prompted much of the concern expressed in 1980, relates to the arrangements for repayment between countries. It was originally intended that certain payments made by the detaining power to individuals would be reimbursed to that power by their own country at the end of the war. After the refunds that I have described, an element of the deductions remained, but, in the circumstances that prevailed at the end of the war, the money was not transferred to Germany and Italy, but was retained by the Treasury. It is argued that it should have been repaid to the service men involved at the time, and should be repaid now.
There are further concerns about the handling of communal funds that were operated in some camps, and about money that was subsequently given to service charities in respect of those funds.
This is a tremendously complex cocktail of issues, and the situation is further complicated by the apparent lack of consensus among the different groups and individuals concerned. The Justice for Prisoners of War group has pointed out the difficulties involved in working out individual claims and making individual payments—difficulties that undoubtedly exist. It seeks the payment of a substantial sum to service charities for the benefit of former prisoners of war and their dependants. The National Ex-Prisoner of War Association representative, however, wants to see the settlement of individual claims from former protected personnel.
As I said, my Department did a huge amount of work in the early 1980s to address the points that were raised then. Moreover, recognising the criticism with which the original working group report was received, it continued to study further questions, and to discuss many additional points with representatives for the former prisoners of war. Indeed, as recent submissions to my Department acknowledge, a number of the criticisms of the original report have been accepted.
At the end of the deliberations of the early 1980s, however, the Government took the view that, although it would be possible to continue to refine points of detail, there was no case for reconsidering the original policies and decisions of previous Administrations of both parties and trying to reopen the matter. Those decisions were not reached lightly, or without profound concern for the strong views of those involved.
A number of the former officer prisoners of war and protected personnel have, however, continued to investigate the matter, and in 1995 they sought to reopen it. At the end of that year, Group Captain Ingle made a detailed submission for redress of grievance to the Air Force board. That submission was similar to one that had already been prepared by Captain Bracken, and the two were considered to see whether they raised any new


issues, or included any details, that had not previously been considered and which, had they been considered, could have changed Ministers' previous views.
While that work was in hand early last year—during which time a further detailed submission was received from Group Captain Ingle—the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association also raised issues relating to protected personnel, and wished to make its own detailed submissions. Those submissions were eventually received last summer. On the basis of all those approaches, it was decided that the whole subject should be re-examined in detail, and a new review was announced, to be headed by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence.
That review is in progress. Its aim is to re-examine the principles that underlay decisions made by successive Governments and agreements between the belligerent powers, those decisions and agreements themselves and the implementation of the various policies concerned. We wish to set all those matters in their wider context, and to see whether the policy decisions were properly made, promulgated and implemented, as far as can now be discovered. I hope that the work will be satisfactory.
I appreciate that the two groups concerned have done a great deal of detailed research, and I congratulate them on the tenacious way in which they have gone about their presentation. They have presented what they feel to be an overwhelming and clear-cut case, and I understand the strength of their feelings and their concern about the time that our review is taking. I appreciate the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and the concern that he has expressed. I hope that, by the end of the debate, he will have been reassured.
It is a fact that many of the arguments of the two groups have been advanced and considered before. The decisions that they wish to be overturned were considered and made by previous Administrations of both parties over a number of years, in the context of the time and with contemporary knowledge. Many of them were questioned and discussed during and after the war, and reconsidered in the 1980s. Because of lasting dissatisfaction, we have agreed to review them again, but, in doing so, we must re-examine the whole matter with great care. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, and to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), that although my natural instinct would be to try to resolve the matter now, I cannot do so in the light of the decisions made by previous Administrations of all parties, the immensely detailed work that has been done and the work that remains to be done. We must conduct the re-examination with the greatest possible care, and settle the matter once and for all.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that I believe that proper resources have been made available for the work. On this occasion, we have been anxious to use specialist staff, experienced in historical research and with knowledge of the archives and the procedures of the second world war and the period immediately after it. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate those staff on the work that they have done:

they are extremely busy, and are taking an enormous amount of detailed care to ensure that we get this right. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the work is proceeding at the best possible speed. We have no interest in not concluding the matter one way or the other as soon as we can.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel said, two excellent officials are leading the work on behalf of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but others are contributing in specific areas. It has been found that, for very good reasons, work of this kind should not be fragmented. My hon. Friend will appreciate that down that path lies the possibility of evidence being missed or misinterpreted, and I know that he would want the work to be as thorough and complete as possible.
I understand that Captain Ingle's submission is a detailed and thorough piece of work, which should be dignified by a proper and detailed response. We are grateful for the offers of meetings with the Justice for Prisoners of War group and the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association, which have been acknowledged and which can only help us to reach a conclusion.
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said that he hopes our work will be complete by the end of March. It follows that, as the work is not yet finished and as he has not yet reached his conclusions, it would be improper for me to comment further on the many detailed and complex issues that have been raised, but I will draw all today's contributions to my noble Friend's attention, and I will personally follow these matters extremely closely.
Finally, let me add my voice to those of hon. Members who have paid lasting tribute to all who fought and were captured by the enemy in battle. There is nothing trite about such tributes in the House. The sacrifice and the hardships of those people cannot be overstated, and the awfulness of being locked up must have been truly dreadful not only for the young men involved but for their families. I know from the time that my grandfather spent in captivity during the Boer war of the lasting impression that is made on those who are unfortunate enough to be taken prisoner of war. My grandfather was lucky to be able to escape quickly, but he recorded that the experience of capture was
the greatest indignity of my life".
I want all those who are concerned with the outcome of our review to know that those feelings are truly understood.
I acknowledge the sense of what has been said by all who have spoken today, and the admirable way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed the feeling that this is a debt of honour that must be resolved, that the work must be finished and that there must be a satisfactory outcome. I cannot forecast the outcome of the work because it is not yet completed, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that our review is being conducted in the greatest possible detail and with an open mind, and that our findings will be made available to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Bus Employees' Pensions

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I should first declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and as secretary of the parliamentary group of Labour Members associated with that union.
Two factors are critically important for those who consider participating in a pension scheme. The first is that they view pensions as wages deferred for the future, after they have retired and must rely on what they have put aside or invested for their golden years. The second is that a pension scheme is held in trust by a company for those who have chosen to pay into it, for the benefit of its members and beneficiaries—not for the benefit of the company or the directors, and certainly not for the benefit of the Government.
In no circumstances should the fate of employees who have invested a portion of their hard-earned wages in such a scheme be abused. In no circumstances should money held in trust by a company on behalf of pension scheme members be hijacked for the company's use or to facilitate gain for anyone other than legitimate members of the pension scheme. It should certainly not be used as a sweetener for privatisation—a bribe for bids for public sector assets based on the principle, "Just look at the pension scheme surplus."
After privatisation, approximately £1 billion has been taken from pension schemes, affecting approximately 1 million past and current public sector workers in various industries. After the 1990 theft from the bus employees' superannuation trust—BEST—pension scheme, as many as 80,000 retired bus workers are losing up to £20 a week of their pension entitlement.
On 6 September 1996, the pensions ombudsman ruled that the Government had unlawfully taken money, to the value of £168 million, out of the BEST pension scheme after privatisation of the National Bus Company. That scheme's rules stated that if the scheme were ever wound up any surplus should be divided among employees, up to the limit allowed by the Inland Revenue. The employer could receive a share only after employees had received the maximum to which they were entitled.
Prior to 14 November 1989, the scheme's original rule—rule 49(b)—stated that if a surplus were available on winding up:
The excess shall he applied in providing additional amounts of annuities … for the benefit of all or any of the Beneficiaries.
Many people joined the fund on that basis. They did not subscribe on the basis of providing the Government with a surplus to use for whatever ends they deemed fit, which is what has happened. The surplus was to be used for the benefit of those who had invested in the scheme—a point that the Government have ignored. Instead, the Government have used the funds as a sweetener for privatisation.
The manner in which the Government were able to achieve such a windfall—the history of which can be found in the ombudsman's report—was due to the amendment of rule 49(b). The BEST trustee was put under pressure to alter the rule by National Bus Company management, who told the trustee that unless the rule was altered the company would suspend its contributions to the fund.
In paragraph 72 of his decision, the ombudsman stated:
The threat to exercise the power to suspend contributions was intended to persuade the Trustee to surrender powers which it held under the Scheme's winding up rules, powers which it was required to exercise in the best interests of the Scheme's members.
In the face of such pressure, the BEST pensions committee had no alternative but to recommend that rule 49(b) should be amended so that the surplus would go to the employer. The amended rule stated:
If any balance remains, the same shall be repaid to the company, except to the extent that the company agrees that part or all of the same may be applied in increasing benefits.
After amendment of the scheme's rules, the Government and their allies launched a campaign of disinformation. Scheme members and Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), who questioned what had occurred, were told by the management, by Allen and Overy—solicitors for the pension fund—and by the Minister that the pension fund surplus had to be paid to the company. They were not told of the company's discretion in the matter, or that—in the fortuitous way in which these matters work out—any surplus would go to the Government when the company was wound up.
The information provided by the Government was incorrect, however, because the rules had been unlawfully amended and the surplus should have been used primarily for the beneficiaries' advantage. In my recitation of the facts, some people may think that I have understated the case and feel that events were more like daylight robbery. Many people believe the latter, and I share that view.
Paragraph 107 of the ombudsman's decision states that the amendment was unlawful and that
the agreement to amend the winding up clause was obtained through a breach of the Company's duty of good faith and through a threat to commit a fraud on power".
The Secretary of State has acquired all the company's liabilities and rights following the dissolution order and must therefore take responsibility for that breach of good faith and that threat to commit a fraud.
As rule 49(b) was unlawfully amended, questions must be asked about the accuracy of information provided to the Public Accounts Committee when it was considering bus privatisation. Did the figures provided to the Committee include the £168 million that the Government had unlawfully taken from the pension fund, and was the Committee informed that the Government had taken the money? As the money never belonged to the Government, was information on it included in their deposition to the Committee?
Another interesting aspect of the debacle is that after the scheme was wound up two trustees were appointed, both of whom were civil servants employed by the Department of Transport—the Department which had taken the money from the pension fund. Those civil servants were supposed to act in the members' best interests in recovering the £168 million—which, with interest, now totals about £200 million—from the Department of Transport. That was a very difficult situation to put them in as they were civil servants in that very Department.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is called insider trading.

Mr. McNamara: Or lack of trading in this case.
When requested to reveal information on any negotiations that had taken place to recover members' money, the trustees—on the instructions of their lawyer—refused to reveal any information, despite the fact that it is a breach of trust law not to supply such information to a pension scheme member who properly requests it. They were thus not only failing to pursue recovery of the money but withholding information from scheme members.
It is worthy of note that following a company search undertaken by my union's legal advisers, it was discovered that the trustee company, which was supposedly independent, was in fact owned by the Secretary of State for Transport. Since then, new trustees have been appointed within the Office of the Official Solicitor. Again, however, one might question their degree of independence from the Government and the speed with which they are advancing the interests of trust members.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put it on record that he is not suggesting any impropriety on the part of the officials appointed as trustees. He will know that when the appointment was made, as the benefits had been insured, it was assumed that the company would have little or no business to transact. We asked the Official Solicitor to replace as quickly as possible those officials who, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, were in a somewhat invidious position, with trustees whom everyone can accept are independent. While the hon. Gentleman may wish to make allegations against me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I hope that he is not impugning the integrity of officials who, as he said, were placed in an invidious position.

Mr. McNamara: No, but I think I am entitled to question the speed with which they are processing the matter.
As matters now stand, members of the scheme have not received any of the pension fund surplus and many may die before their entitlement becomes available. Meanwhile, the Government have taken all the surplus and used it to subsidise the privatisation process.
In the case of the BEST pension scheme, the law is very clear: where a scheme states that a surplus must be distributed to the employees, that must be done. There is no question of the money being distributed elsewhere until employees have received the maximum entitlement under Inland Revenue rules. Altering the rules so that the employees no longer receive the surplus, following pressure from the company—and, thereby, from the Government—was unlawful. The ombudsman directed the trustee to
recover the monies paid to the company on winding up, with interest at an equitable rate".
Regrettably, the BEST scheme is not an isolated instance of Government fingers in the till. The ombudsman's decision on the National Bus pension fund is expected in a few months. It is also expected that the ombudsman will find that £30 million was unlawfully taken from that fund. The National Grid has already been ordered to pay £55 million—a very modest estimate as some commentators believe that the true figure may be as much as £500 million—to the employees' pension fund after similar complaints from members. The Government

have threatened to use a £55 million surplus in the Rosyth dock workers pension fund as a sweetener for privatisation. Rail companies plan to use a £500 million surplus in the British Rail pension fund, which existed prior to privatisation, for their own benefit.
Meanwhile, the TGWU, which is my own union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the GMB, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union and others are investigating a series of complaints from members about what happened to pension funds when their industries were privatised. There are therefore a number of questions that I should like to put to the Minister.
It is most surprising that although the pensions ombudsman—a Government statutory appointee—has reached his decision, the Government, far from accepting what their own appointee has said, have turned to the trustees and said, "Sue us. Yes, we'll give you the money for your legal fees, but sue us." What message does that send to the nation about the Government's attitude? Their own appointee has found against them, so they play for time. A man who is distinguished in his knowledge of the law and of the industry finds the Government in "breach of good faith" and possibly committing "a fraud on power," but the Government, in order to delay matters, turn around and say, "Sue us."
My first question is why should this matter be brought to court for resolution when the ombudsman has so clearly stated that rule 49(b) was unlawfully amended? What is the motivation for the employment of such an obvious delaying tactic? After all, the office of the ombudsman is a statutory appointment created by the Government. One might suggest that the delay can only be exacerbated by the fact that the current trustees work in the office of the Official Solicitor and the Government are reluctant to proceed quickly.
Secondly, why did the Secretary of State mislead and supply blatantly false information to a number of interested and connected parties on the subject of the surplus? Not only were the management of Allen and Overy—solicitors to the fund—guilty of such action, but so was the Department in asserting that the surplus had to be paid to the company without at any time revealing the role of the pressure put on the trustees to alter the rule. On a related point, may we also have information about what was told to the Public Accounts Committee?
Thirdly, will the Minister publish the correspondence between the Government and the trustees, who in theory should have been acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries and not delaying matters to assist the Government when they were in fact working for a Government Department? If the Minister will not provide that explanation, he must explain why not. Under the law, a beneficiary is entitled to be given the information that he requests on such issues. Further to that matter, will the Secretary of State give some indication of when he expects the trustees to be able to take action? Has he given the trustees any indication of the time scale envisaged by his Department?
Given all those facts, it is scarcely amicable to suggest a course of litigation, irrespective of the fact that Ministers expressed the hope that it will
be carried out in as co-operative and speedy a manner as possible".


What facts contained in the ombudsman's report do Ministers not accept? Do they accept that the rule was altered? Do they accept that the ombudsman's report is an accurate statement of the law and of the Government's liabilities? If not, why not?
This is not an arcane dispute on an obscure point of law; it is a matter of great importance to thousands of pensioners who feel that they have had their pension funds filched to subsidise privatisation, making the Department of Transport the Robert Maxwell of the public sector. This is a debate not on the merits of privatisation but on how privatisation has been achieved at the expense of people who paid into pension schemes where the pension moneys in this case—and perhaps in many others and also perhaps in future cases involving British Rail—have been or might be used to bribe reluctant bidders to enter the marketplace to bid for public assets. Natural justice and the law demand that BEST pensioners should receive their full entitlements and should receive them now, not after further prolonged litigation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for not having been here at the beginning of the debate. It is seldom an excuse in the House of Commons to say that things were going so fast that I was not keeping up with the excitement in the Chamber. What my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is doing is tremendously important and I congratulate him.
It is not clear how the Government can so consistently think that they can get away with the most outrageous behaviour without anyone noticing. I often forget how brazen they are. Their sheer brass neck amazes me.
I am an individual member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Many members of my union are busmen who are directly affected by the pension scam—I use the word scam advisedly, because that is what it is—but I must make it clear that I do not benefit from the pension fund, nor have I ever contributed to it. That does not mean, however, that I am not outraged that the Government's behaviour has been allowed to go almost unremarked.
Having set up a parliamentary commissioner—or ombudsman, as we call him for convenience—to look into the correct administration of the business of government, after a clear decision that their behaviour on the bus companies pension funds was not only bad administration but a total breach of faith, would any other Government in the world have said, "Thank you very much. We have taken note of what you have said. Now if you want to get your money back, you've got to sue us."?
Because of their incredibly narrow and tiny attitude towards the sale of state assets, the Government were prepared to use the pension funds of bus companies to encourage private companies to take over assets. They were then prepared to go to the trustees of the pension funds, knowing that the law puts them into a straitjacket—correctly; no one wants pension fund trustees to be able to do whatever they like—and tell them, "This is a deal you can accept or you can't accept. Either you commit suicide publicly or you accept a deal that says that we

take the assets and we tell you what you are going to do. If you don't like it, we shall make it impossible for you to continue." That is the sort of deal that was spelt out to the trustees. It does not matter how obscure the legal points are. I am not a lawyer, but I know a clear case of stealing somebody's assets when I see it.
I am in perpetual correspondence with the Minister. I sometimes feel that it would save a lot of time if we had a direct line between his office and mine, because I am constantly questioning him on the behaviour of the Department of Transport in relation to other people's assets. The Minister knows that the pension funds were built up by contributions from some of the poorest paid members of the industry. The transport industry does not overpay those who work long hours in difficult conditions. I assure the Minister that busmen and buswomen are not among the multi-millionaires of the United Kingdom. Their assets, built up slowly over a long period by them and their employers, were used as large bags of sweeties to encourage people to come in and take over the assets of the state bus companies.
The Government's behaviour raises all sorts of questions. Would any other organisation say, "I'll use your money to tell you to sue me."? The Government are using taxpayers' money to enable the Government to be sued. At every level, coming and going, the taxpayer pays. That is a basic fact, in case anybody had not noticed. It is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayer's money. They constantly tell us, "Oh, we don't have any money, it belongs to the taxpayers." It certainly does. What is the Department doing with that money? It says, "The ombudsman has found against us, but we have no intention of carrying out what the ombudsman has said unless we are sued." Where is the money for that legal process to come from? From the taxpayer. We have a violent circle of complete nonsense, in which the taxpayer is supposed to pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised some detailed and important points, and I have no intention of repeating what he said. The Government's effrontery amazes me. They have an extraordinary ability to take my breath away. They continually do things that I though that no one would have the nerve to do, and then they do it again. To quote a classic case, I wrote to the Minister just before Christmas asking him about the pension funds of a number of different establishments—the National Bus Company, the British Airports Authority, the privatised ports and British Rail. I hope on another occasion to be able to spell out in detail that what the Government have done to the busmen is nothing compared with what they have done to people in the rail industry and some others.
Yesterday, when it became known that this debate would take place this morning, by some strange coincidence, I received a long and detailed reply from the Minister. I am grateful to him and I am sure that there is no connection between the two facts. It is worth putting some of his comments on the record. He said:
Ownership of the trustee company, NBC Pensions Trustee Limited, passed to my Department as part of the arrangements in the late 1980s … It was believed at the time that—with payment of pensions secured through the purchase of insurance—the company would have little or no substantive function. Two officials of the Department were appointed to be Directors of the company. However, it remained a separate legal entity with its Directors required to act independently in carrying out their duties to the company, which also retained its own independent legal advisers.


When the Pensions Ombudsman issued his draft determination … steps were taken within the Department to ensure that those officials who were Directors of the company were separated from, and took no part in, the Department's consideration of this subject.
The Minister intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, saying that he hoped that there was no question of our criticising individual civil servants. Of course there is not, nor has there ever been, but the Minister knows that one of the strongest arguments that the House has with the City of London on any kind of control of funds is that there should be clear distinctions in any company, regardless of day-to-day operation, between the activities of anyone with a vested interest in operating on both sides of the fence. That is why the House has frequently had to change legislation on directors' functions in recent years.
This is not a new issue—it is plainly on the statute book and it has been argued time and again, but the Government are saying, "We will have two of our members appointed as directors. They will not have any connection with the people next door. We will not influence them. Indeed, we will not even know the legal opinions that have been given to them." I have much more faith in individual civil servants than I have in the Minister—I hope that he does not take that too personally. It is extremely difficult for people outside to understand the duality of function of those employees of the Department. It would have been far better if the Government had been prepared to arrange a different structure.
Why are there no trade union representatives of the work force among the trustees? What is to stop the Minister from accepting trustees from the Transport and General Workers Union and the RMT, which have members who have contributed to the scheme and are directly affected by the decisions? Indeed, who will reimburse the unfortunate man who brought the case? As far as we know, he has been pushed aside without being reimbursed. In effect, he has been told, "Thank you very much. We have seen all that and we shall put it right in so far as we are forced to do so, but we shall do no more unless we are pushed into a corner."
It is clear that when the Government realised that all state organisations had large pension funds, they said to private buyers, "We can discuss certain matters openly, but you must bear in mind that all these establishments have very large pension funds to which you will have access after the sale." Some rail franchises were based on the assumption that private companies would get their hands on pension funds after taking over the franchise. It is nothing new for the Government to incorporate in their sales policy access to other people's assets.
The Government have offered no explanation. Does not the fact that an individual hon. Member has had to raise the subject in private Members' time to allow a full debate on the Floor of the House demonstrate the Government's attitude? They are certainly not prepared to go into detail in their own time and spell out the implications of their action.
Whatever important and detailed questions are raised this morning, the Minister has to answer one basic charge. The Government sold the bus companies knowing that they had large pension funds. They made a proposition to the trustees of those pension funds that they knew they could not refuse. It was almost a Mafia-style proposition. When it was accepted, individual members of the fund

objected, and one took the case to the ombudsman. It then became clear that the Government's action was wrong—not accidental or a bit bent around the edges, but wrong.
So what did the Government do? Did they come to the House and say, "We are terribly sorry, but we got it all wrong. We are sorry about that and we will put it right. We shall appoint independent trustees and return the money. We admit what we have done and we shall pay the money back with interest"? They certainly did not. It was not that simple. In effect, this bankrupt Government said, "We are hanging on to every damn penny before the general election. It is very simple. If you want your money back, you will have to sue us. You will have to sue us with taxpayers' money although it is taxpayers' money that needs to be returned." That is so outrageous and disgraceful that I can hardly believe that the Government are seriously suggesting it.
I know that the Government have no great moral commitment, but it would be nice if they took a moral stance in respect of such matters. The Minister is very nice and amiable. I am sure that he is a very honest fellow, but, by heavens, he has a funny Government sitting around him taking some very strange decisions. This morning I should like him to say, "Sorry about that, but we got it all wrong. Far from asking anybody to sue us, we shall rapidly bring the matter to a conclusion. We shall reimburse the individual who brought the case and appoint trade union trustees so that the interests of the work force will be covered in future. We apologise not only to the bus companies and their work force, but to the House of Commons." That would be a very unusual phrase for the Government to use, but it is extremely important. They should say, "We apologise because what we did was wrong. The ombudsman has said that it was wrong and we are sorry." If they did that, some of us would be so astounded that we might end up having seizures, but they would do something to restore the incredibly damaged standing of an incredibly tatty Government. When they do that, I shall come to the House and pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues, but until then I repeat that the Government are guilty of the outrageous misuse of other people's funds and they should be ashamed.

Mr. Eric Martlew: First, let me declare an interest. At the last general election I was sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, many of whose members belong to the pension fund that we are debating. I shall sit down if the Minister accepts the invitation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to come to the Dispatch Box and promise to put the matter right today. He obviously does not wish to do so.
I have been in public life for 25 years. When I first entered public life, I was an angry young man. I am glad to say that I am still angry. My constituency is the hub of Cumberland and the south of Scotland for the bus companies, so many of my constituents have worked in the industry for many years. They were never paid a great deal of money even when the industry was nationalised. They now work for Stagecoach, and I suspect that they are paid considerably less. However, they provided an excellent service and they paid into the pension fund.
I have a letter from my constituent, Mr. Reay, who paid into the pension fund from its inception in 1974 until it was wound up in 1987. He expects the money that the


Government took illegally to be returned to him and the other 40,000 pensioners. He is right. Morally, the Minister has no argument.
The Government took the money illegally, and now they are delaying giving it back. Everyone in the Chamber realises that, when the case goes to court, the Government will be found to have acted illegally and the money will have to be paid back. There has already been a 10-year delay, and some pensioners have died. The Government have taken a cynical approach. They realise that, if they delay another two years, more pensioners will die. It is a disgrace. I am not as charitable about the Minister as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. He could get up and say, "We were wrong. The ombudsman said we were wrong and we shall pay back the money." It seems that that will not happen.
Before nationalisation, Carlisle had several bus companies—the Ribble, the United and the Cumberland—which were amalgamated into the National Bus Company. My constituents and 40,000 others paid into the pension fund. Now, we have a private monopoly, Stagecoach, which is now bidding for the Regional Railways franchise and the west coast main line. Stagecoach could end up with a monopoly on public transport in the region. Perhaps that is for another debate, but it is a significant consideration because Carlisle is a railway centre and there is concern that what has happened to the bus pension fund may happen to the railway pension fund.
The Government are not doing the honourable thing. The £168 million could come out of the Treasury's contingency fund. There would be no problem with that—such is the purpose of the contingency fund—but because the Government are deeply immersed in asset stripping other former nationalised companies, they realise that this could be the tip of the iceberg and that hundreds of millions of pounds might have to be returned to pensioners.
I have received many letters on the subject. Some are from traditional Conservative supporters who will not be voting Conservative at the next election. The Government are in their dying days. They could do something honourable before they go. After the general election, the Minister will not be dealing with the matter from the Dispatch Box. I certainly hope that an incoming Labour Government will resolve the matter. The Government have behaved like a very shady double glazing company—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Without the windows.

Mr. Martlew: Indeed. The Government have taken the money without providing the service, and they have been caught out. Trading standards officers would write to any organisation that acted in such a way and say, "Look, you are wrong. You should give the money back." The Government are telling pensioners, "Yes, we are wrong, but we are not going to give you the money back. If you want it, you have got to sue us for it."
How can we expect any other organisation or private pension company that is found to be in breach of regulations by the pensions ombudsman to take any notice of such a judgment when the Government, who set up the

system, refuse to? The Government have undermined the ombudsman system. I hope that they realise that the significance of the matter goes far beyond the case before us. Other organisations will ask why they should take any notice of the system when the Government do not. The matter reminds me a little of the Deputy Prime Minister admitting that he used to delay his payments when he worked in the private sector. Such behaviour sets the wrong example to the rest of the country.
I am very angry, my constituents are very angry and there is no excuse for what has happened. There is no doubt that it is immoral. People who are not receiving a fantastic pension to start with have paid in money. They were low paid workers and they are receiving very low pensions—the standard of living of some of them is just above the social security level and actually saving the Government money. Why can the Government not accept that the money should be given back to the pensioners to enable them to spend their retirement in some comfort? The matter concerns people and the right thing to do. The Government are a disgrace.
Although we should not have needed today's debate, it has given the Minister the opportunity to put everything right and to be thought of as an honourable man who has done the decent thing. There are 40,000 people out there who would applaud him if he stood at the Dispatch Box today and said that the Government are wrong, that they are sorry, that the delay of 10 years is unacceptable, but that they will end the delay, put the matter right as soon as possible and ensure that the bus pension fund pensioners get the money that they deserve.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for not being in the Chamber when the very first word in this extremely important debate was uttered.
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing this Adjournment debate, but on being so instrumental in introducing for the very first time on the Floor of the House what, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) pointed out, can only be termed the debacle of the bus employees superannuation trust pension scheme.
I intend to be brief because much that needs to be said about the Government's drab, indeed squalid, treatment of the BEST pensioners and pensioners of other privatised industries has already been defined in passionate detail by the extraordinarily wonderful speeches made not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North but by my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). They all spoke in great detail about what has produced this debacle—and with great passion on behalf of their constituents.
The pensions ombudsman's report into the handling of the BEST trust scheme prior to the privatisation of the National Bus Company makes grim reading. The ombudsman uses the phrase "a breach of trust" of which pension fund members were the victims. He refers to the then pension trustees as being "threatened" and of "big sticks" being wielded. He talks of "fraud" and
an improper use of power",


all with the Government's full knowledge and consent.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North, and for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the role that the trustees have played. It is true that the ombudsman's report finds against them and the company. It is equally true, however, that Ministers were on hand as every threat was made, every ultimatum was issued and every amendment was made to the pension arrangements of up to 80,000 National Bus Company employees. It all occurred without the knowledge or consent of those employees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to insider trading. The activity defined in the ombudsman's report would normally be associated with the cut-throat City takeover battles of billion pound multinationals. Fraud, breaches of trust, threats and unlawful activity should have no part in the pension arrangements of men and women who, having worked hard all their lives, seek nothing more than security in their well-earned retirement. Let us be clear, the pensioners who are the subject of today's debate are not seeking charity. They are not scrounging. Nor are they asking for handouts. As employees of the former National Bus Company, they gave years of dedicated service, believing—indeed, trusting—that, having worked for their pension entitlements, they would be theirs by right.
We are engaged today in a debate on the bus employee superannuation trust not only because of the actions of the trustees or the company, but because of the actions of Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that this debate was not about the merits of privatisation, but he would agree with me that the Government's dogmatic dependence on privatisation and their antipathy towards anything prefaced by the word "public"—be it public transport, public good, public interest or public welfare—directly threatened the future of the BEST scheme. The Government's dogma of privatisation directly led to the activities described in the pensions ombudsman's report and resulted in a loss to the BEST pensioners of at least £168 million.
What did such a dogmatic policy of privatisation and deregulation, which cost the BEST pensioners so much, achieve for the bus industry and the passengers who depended on it? Bus wars on our streets, a 30 per cent. drop in passenger journeys and a 21 per cent. increase in fares. The policy was costly not only for BEST pensioners but for the entire country.
As hon. Members have said, not only have BEST fund members seen the pension fund that they worked so hard to build pillaged by the Government; there is the £30 million that has been removed from the National Bus pension fund, the £55 million from the National Grid employees' pension fund, the £55 million from the Rosyth dock workers, the £500 million from the British Rail pensioners' surplus—the list is almost endless. Time and again, the pension rights of Britain's workers have been used to sweeten the bitter pill of Tory privatisation policy.
Indeed, only this week, the dead hand of privatisation began to hover over the pension rights of another set of public transport employees. The London Transport pension fund is valued at more than £2.5 billion, and more than 90 per cent. of London Transport's 18,000 employees are members of the scheme, yet they too see the pension entitlements that they worked for under threat—not from the vagaries of the equities market, but from the Government.
In the light of the BEST beneficiaries' experience, what guarantees are there for the members of the London Transport pension fund? Will their fund be protected? Will any surpluses be safeguarded? It is not an exaggeration to say to every London Transport employee that the next time they see a Conservative poster with gleaming red eyes, they should remember the gleaming blue eyes that are focused on their pension fund. If the BEST pensioners could not trust the Government with their pensions, why should LT's pensioners?
What does it say about this Government that privatisation, the cornerstone of their political agenda over the past 18 years, had to be built on the ruined dreams of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers throughout the country? Ministers talk of privatisation as their great policy success, but what sort of success is it that cannot be guaranteed without depriving those who have worked all their lives for their country of the pension entitlements their country promised them?
Ministers talk of an economic miracle, but it would seem that the economics were based on that old miracle otherwise known as the three-card trick, with British pensioners as the victims. Those pensioners did not work exclusively for themselves. They were not the fat cats who donate so much to the coffers of the Conservative party. They did more than just table a couple of questions for a month's pay. In working for our nation's public industries, they worked for us all, for the entire nation.
The ombudsman's report on the BEST fund refers to a lack of trust. The trust those pensioners and other public sector workers placed in the Government that, once their work was completed, they could rest in comfort and dignity, has been grossly betrayed.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Historians, like Opposition Members this morning, have the benefit of hindsight when commenting on past events. The House will appreciate that with litigation in prospect on the recent determination by the pensions ombudsman I have to weigh my words carefully in replying to this debate.
It may help the House if I describe the background to the decision taken in 1986 on the best way to protect the accrued pension benefits of NBC employees.
The bus employees superannuation scheme was what is called a defined benefits scheme: that is, the rules of the scheme defined the benefits that are expected to be payable to the member. It is important to note that, even in a defined benefit scheme, the benefits for employees specified in the rules are not unequivocally guaranteed by the employer. The trust deed and rules of the typical defined benefit scheme allow the employer to refrain from paying contributions that cannot be afforded or are higher than necessary.
The unilateral right of the employer to suspend or terminate contributions to the scheme is necessary, not only because of the risk of the company being faced with severely unfavourable circumstances but because of the risk that the trustees might demand a higher level of contributions than was reasonable.
The privatisation of the NBC 10 years ago differed from earlier transport privatisations in that it involved the privatisation of a nationalised industry into a large number


of separate units, rather than as a whole. The NBC had two pension funds. The larger of these, covering the majority of NBC employees, was called the bus employees superannuation trust and is the subject of the pensions ombudsman's recent decision. The funds had built up large accrued liabilities in respect of employees' past service with the NBC or its predecessor companies.
There was great debate and concern during the passage of the Transport Act 1985, and during discussion of the detailed arrangements for the privatisation, about how these accrued benefits for past service would be secured. The question was, following the demise of the NBC, who would stand behind the funds if they had insufficient assets at some future date to secure benefits or—if the funds were not to be continued—what alternative arrangements should be entered into to secure benefits.
As some hon. Members will recall, there were strong demands for the Government to give a formal guarantee of the funds. To have done that would have meant that the Government assumed a greater responsibility for the fund than the employer had done in the past.
However, the Government recognised the strength of feeling behind the demands and the need to provide reasonable protection for members' accrued benefits. There were lengthy discussions in which the NBC, the trustees of the funds—including trade union representatives—and the Government all took part and in which all sides had the benefit of legal and actuarial advice in considering the options for achieving that aim.
In those discussions the Government offered an undertaking, which, though short of a formal guarantee, would involve the NBC making funds available to cover any deficiency in the fund at the date it was wound up following an actuarial valuation on a reasonable and prudent basis.
Against that background, a number of options were considered at the time, including for example the possible continuation of the funds as "closed funds". The point to note about a closed fund is that there is no employer standing behind it with the consequent risk that the assets of the fund have to stand alone in meeting its liabilities.
We should bear it in mind that the trustees in 1985–86 were faced with great uncertainty about how far the fund's assets would be sufficient to meet its obligations to members. Although an interim valuation of the fund, available to the trustees at the end of 1985—just before the relevant decisions—indicated the possibility that the fund was moving into surplus, the last full formal valuation, available at the beginning of 1985, had shown the fund to be in deficit.
It is not unreasonable or surprising that the trustees in making their decisions placed great value on arrangements which secured members' accrued benefits against these uncertainties.
A clear and very relevant illustration of the general uncertainty the trustees faced is what might have been the consequences for the fund of the stock market collapse of October 1987, when the value of equity investments fell by 30 per cent. Fortunately for the bus employees fund it had already changed the emphasis of its investment policy

from equities to index-linked gilts, but only as a consequence of implementation of the 1986 decisions and ahead of the purchase of insurance.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested in this argument because the Government used the closed fund without any difficulty in certain other privatisations. Is the Minister really suggesting that it was not made clear by the Government to the trustees that if they did not accept what was on offer, the Government would cease to pay the contributions? If that was the case, was that not simply straightforward blackmail?

Mr. Watts: Not at all. The trustees had the option of taking the view that the fund would have adequate assets to meet its liabilities and to continue it as a closed fund. However, as I have been explaining, because of the uncertainties about the fund's ability to cover the future liabilities, the trustees opted for the insured option which guaranteed the accrued benefits for members of the fund, to their advantage.
Those concerned in 1986 concluded that the balance of advantage was with an option which involved using the fund to purchase annuities from an insurance company. That meant that an insurance company would assume the obligations of the two funds, including the payment of pensions to individuals, in return for a capital payment from the funds' assets.
The insurance option was therefore explored. One of the further issues that had to be considered was the basis of indexation of accrued benefits up to the point when the pension was in payment. The existing rules of the bus employees superannuation trust provided for indexation on the basis of equivalence to changes in national average earnings. However, there was great uncertainty about whether insurance companies would be willing to underwrite at any realistic price insurance on that basis because of the uncertainty it involved.
It was possible to envisage insurance on the basis of indexation linked to a formula of retail prices index plus a specific figure, which might turn out in practice—as did turn out generally to be the case—to be as beneficial as, or even more beneficial than, a link to national average earnings.
I can now outline for the House the main elements of the agreement, the deal or the scam, as Opposition Members have described it, reached between the trustees of the fund, the NBC and the Government in 1986. It had four essential elements: the accrued benefits of members would be secured by the purchase of insurance and the fund would be wound up; to facilitate the purchase of insurance, the rules of the fund would be changed to provide for indexation of accrued benefits at RPI plus 2.25 per cent., if insurance on that basis could be purchased more cheaply than insurance on the basis of a link to earnings; the Government's undertaking, which I have already mentioned, to make good any deficiency in the fund at the date of wind-up; and finally, and crucially for subsequent events, it was agreed that that undertaking would be balanced by a change in the fund's rules which


provided that should there be a surplus in the fund at wind-up, that surplus would be paid to the NBC and thence to the Government.

Mr. Martlew: Why was it necessary to include a clause to provide that any surplus should go to the Government rather than the pensioners?

Mr. Watts: It was necessary because otherwise the agreement would have been a one-way bet at the expense of the taxpayer for the pensioners involved in the fund. In that case, if the fund was in deficit, the taxpayer would step in and provide funds, but if the fund was in surplus—having already secured the accrued benefits by insurance—that benefit would also go to the pensioners. That would have meant the Government stepping in—as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said—and using the taxpayer's money to secure greater benefits for the pensioners than had ever been available to them under the original terms of the scheme.

Mr. McNamara: Surely the whole point at issue is that the agreement would not have been necessary had not the Government set out on their course of action. Under the old scheme, it would have been possible for the trustees to go back to beneficiaries and the contributors and say that they were in difficulties and then the problem would not have to be dealt with in such a way. That option was removed by the Government's decision to privatise. In fact, it is the Government who are on a two-way bet in their favour, not the beneficiaries.
Is the Minister saying that he does not accept the ombudsman's statement that there was a fraud and that the trustees were subject to coercive action by the Government? In that case, he is saying that he does not accept the ombudsman's findings.

Mr. Watts: It is precisely because we do not agree with the decision of the pensions ombudsman that we believe, and are advised, that there are important matters to be considered at law and that is why we have acted as we have. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we had not privatised NBC, none of the changes would have been necessary, but he must accept that the trustees, in fulfilling their obligations to the members of the fund, had to take as a given the fact that the industry was being privatised, and that NBC—the employer that had been contributing to the fund—would no longer exist and, therefore, had to agree arrangements that secured the benefits for pensions in payment and for those whose pensions were deferred.

Mr. McNamara: The ombudsman found that the Government effectively told the trustees to accept the conditions or the Government would not make contributions. He did not find that the Government were not capable of making contributions.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting, as did the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), that the Government should have accepted obligations—to be funded by the taxpayer—that gave greater guarantees and protection to the members of the fund than they had under the original terms.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Before the Minister moves on, will he spell out again exactly what he said—that he does not agree

with the ombudsman's decision? That statement is more important than even some of the details we are now discussing. Is he really saying that a Government Minister does not accept the independent opinion of the Parliamentary Commissioner, commonly known as the ombudsman, whose office was set up to examine independently the behaviour of Government Departments? If that is the case, it is even more important than the misappropriation of funds for bus pensions, because the Government would be setting a precedent that could cause them enormous difficulty.

Mr. Watts: It is important to recognise that the pensions ombudsman's decision did not relate to the conduct of my Department.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Really? Which Department did it relate to?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady should acknowledge that the complaint was made against the trustees of the fund and that the pensions ombudsman—

Mr. Martlew: rose—

Mr. Watts: I must reply to one point before I take yet another.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is up to the Minister whether he gives way.

Mr. Watts: The decision that the pensions ombudsman made was directed to the trustees. I advance no opinion on the decision that the ombudsman reached regarding the trustees, but I do not accept the varied and wild accusations that have been made by Opposition Members today that the Government are guilty on the basis of the ombudsman's findings about the conduct of the trustees. Important legal issues remain to be resolved and, in our view and on advice, we believe that they are best resolved in the courts.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Martlew: rose—

Mr. Watts: I have given way enough, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Carlisle.

Mr. Martlew: You have gone on about the trustees being at fault, but who appointed the trustees?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is addressing me.

Mr. Watts: The trustees in question are those who were the trustees of the NBC fund, not the trustees appointed after the dissolution of NBC. They comprised representatives of the management of the company and of the trade unions. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed list at the moment, although if he would like that further information I will seek to secure it for him and I will write to him.

Mr. McNamara: Under the terms of the privatisation, did not the Government accept all the responsibilities for


what went before? Those were the terms. The Government accepted all the liabilities and all the responsibilities in the Bill. Therefore, the Government stand as accepting the responsibility for the fraud on the beneficiaries and the coercion of the trustees.

Mr. Watts: I find that an extraordinary argument. The Government accepted that they would guarantee that the fund at its dissolution had sufficient money to secure the benefits due to existing pensioners and to those who had an interest in deferred pensions. I refute the hon. Gentleman's comments absolutely.
The House will want to note that the aim of the agreement was to secure members' benefits on a satisfactory basis—in short, to provide security for pensions in payment and deferred pensions and certainty for the trustees in the discharge of their responsibilities. It is important to recognise that the agreement achieved that aim. There is no question of the agreement being a pretext for a raid on the funds, because—at the time the decisions had to be made—the most recent complete valuation had shown the fund to be in deficit. It was because of the uncertainty in the minds of the trustees about whether the fund had adequate assets to meet its future liabilities that they sought to reach an agreement with the Government on the best way to secure those benefits.
It is also important to note that the agreement balanced the Government's undertaking—that, in the event of a deficit, the scheme would be placed in funds—with a mechanism, through the rule change on the use of a surplus on wind-up, to ensure that safeguards would be in place to ensure that the taxpayer did not take on a liability only to find that the fund was in surplus. That was a prudent and reasonable safeguard and, if it had not been put in place, the pensioners would have enjoyed a one-way bet at the taxpayer's expense. It was agreed at the time that the mechanism was an appropriate element in the agreement and achieved the aim of securing members' accrued benefits.
I find it difficult to accept any argument that the members of the fund were the losers from this agreement. On the contrary, they gained the security and the certainty that represented, and a basis for the indexation of accrued benefits which—as it has turned out for the vast majority of members—have been more generous than would have been the case if the link had just been to national average earnings.
The agreement that I have just described was set out in a statement to NBC employees in June 1986. It was signed on behalf of the company by its chairman and on behalf of the trustees of the two pension funds by the chairman of the NBC pensions committee—on which, of course, there were union representatives. That statement outlined the belief of the NBC and the trustees that the arrangements entered into
will provide the necessary protection for payment of accrued benefits—including the attaching index-linking".
The statement also explained the factors that underlay the agreement reached. I refer in particular to two of the points made there. The statement refers to NBC's obligation to the Government—in effect, its obligation to the taxpayer—not to fund surpluses in the funds in the period running up to NBC's dissolution. It also refers to

the trustee's recognition of the volatility of the market value of investments securing the benefits provided by the funds, the obligation resulting from the fact that benefits were index-linked and the fact that NBC itself was to be dissolved in a relatively short period. That sums up the kernel of the agreement—it balanced the obligations of all the parties involved, and it balanced security for members' accrued benefits on a satisfactory basis with the, at that time, uncertain possibility of a surplus in the fund being available for payment to the NBC.
I shall now move on to subsequent events. Following the agreement that I have just described, bids were invited from insurance companies. As a result, the liabilities of the funds were covered through insurance with Standard Life, who took on responsibility for the payment of pensions to individuals, and the funds themselves were wound up. I should emphasise that these liabilities have been, and continue to be, met in full.
The House will recall that, in the second half of the 1980s, there was a period of general growth in investment income. The assets of the bus employees superannuation trust were part of this general growth. As a result of this and other factors, the fund at wind-up was in substantial surplus. Under the agreed rule changes that I have already described, a surplus of £103 million after tax was paid to the NBC and passed to the Government in 1990. Some time later—in 1992—a complaint was made to the pensions ombudsman alleging that the trustees of the fund were in breach of trust and not acting in the members' best interests in entering into these arrangements.
It is this complaint that the pensions ombudsman has recently upheld, and following that decision, he has directed the trustees to take all practicable steps to obtain the return of the moneys received by my Department from the bus employees superannuation trust. It is important to note that his determination was directed to the trustees and makes clear that he has not carried out an investigation, nor made a determination, with respect to the National Bus Company or my Department.
Since the Department was not a party to the determination, the option was not available for the Government themselves to test its validity at law by appealing against it to the High Court. Instead, following the determination, the trustees wrote to the Department to ask for our proposals for repaying the surplus or, if the Department was not prepared to repay the surplus, for financial resources to seek its recovery through the courts.
This is not the time nor the place for the detailed legal arguments about the basis for the pensions ombudsman's decision, but, following the approach from the trustees, we have taken legal advice on the complex issues raised by the determination. This is a changing and developing area of the law. Judgments made since 1986—when the decisions I have outlined were made—may have to be taken into account. However, the advice available to us is that there are good grounds for seeking to put these matters before the courts.
Given that advice, it is our duty to taxpayers—who would have to provide a very large sum if the pensions ombudsman's view were upheld—to ensure that the legal doubts about the justification for repayment of the surplus are fully resolved. With the funds wound up, the trustee company has no resources of its own to pursue litigation. As announced in a written answer to the House on 27 November, we have offered to pay the legal costs of


the trustees should they wish to pursue through the courts a claim for repayment, and they have recently replied that that is indeed what they wish to do. I give the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North an undertaking that we are not imposing, nor seeking to impose, any delay in those proceedings. It would not be appropriate for us to indicate what we think the timetable should be—that is matter for the newly appointed trustees—but we shall do everything we can to facilitate an early resolution of the matters.
I hope that the legal action now in prospect will as speedily as possible provide a definitive resolution of these matters which can be seen as fair and reasonable. I believe that I have set out the reasons why the Government take the view that the arrangements entered into in good faith by NBC, the Government and the trustees of the fund in 1986 were for the purposes of protecting the interests of pensioners, that the arrangements have secured that objective and that the pensioners have received a better benefit from the fund under the arrangements entered into than if the fund had continued with its existing rules or as a closed fund.
I hope that the House will now understand why I did not accept the invitation—tempting though it was—to merely come here, say sorry and receive accolades from Opposition Members, but rather state that the matters should be considered by the courts. I am sure that when the courts make a decision, it will be important for pensions law in general. I have every confidence that that is the right course of action for us to take.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I doubt very much that the House will be convinced by the Minister's remarks. It was brought home to him by my hon. Friends that the Government undoubtedly were guilty, but he made no reference to the fact that the ombudsman found that the Government were responsible and made no attempt to argue the Government's case. Why has the Minister ignored the pleas from Opposition Members to meet the Government's obligations to the pensioners? That is typical of this Government.
I wish to point out to the Minister that those pensioners recently lobbied the Department of Transport to meet the Secretary of State. They stayed there for more than half an hour, but he sloped out of the building at the end of the day without meeting them. That shows how the Government react to the rights of working people and, in particular, to the issue of pensions. We have heard today a weak excuse from the Government, who are trying to avoid their responsibility and to ignore the advice given by the Parliamentary Commissioner. That sums up what the Government are about, and they ought to be condemned for the way in which they have dealt with this problem.
I declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Max Madden: First, I apologise for not being here for the beginning of the debate. That was partly due to the fact that the debate started earlier than scheduled. The debate is due to continue until 12.30 pm, and I wish to make some brief comments. Since I have been in the Chamber, I have shared the

dismay and concern of other hon. Members at the attitude demonstrated by the Minister to the decisions of the pensions ombudsman. It is without precedent, and quite shameful, for a Minister to come to the House and say that he is unwilling to accept the independent judgment of the pensions ombudsman. As I understand it—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said earlier—the pensions ombudsman said that in this matter the Government had acted in a fraudulent manner.
The Minister seemed extremely reluctant to admit that the trustees of the fund were appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport immediately after privatisation. He is busily trying to shift responsibility away from where it should lie—squarely with the Department of Transport.
Lengthy litigation would create a considerable cost not only for the general taxpayer but for the bus pensioners, who are owed money but will have to contribute to paying for the expense forced on the nation by the Government's unwillingness to accept the independent judgment of the pensions ombudsman that the money should have been paid years ago.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not confirm the view expressed by the Minister but will consider the matter for himself. Is it the most prudent use of public money for the matter to be put before the courts? I believe that it is not.
The Minister has plenty of time—another 20 minutes—and I would be extremely grateful if he would tell us the expected cost of the litigation. How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds will it cost? There are ramifications for other public industries. I understand that there are British Rail pensioners in precisely the same position, and there are important implications for other public sector industries that have been privatised as a result of the Government's dogmatic policies since 1979.
The chickens are coming home to roost, and unfortunately the cost is again falling on British taxpayers. The Government have lost those important public assets and they want to rip off British taxpayers for a second time by making them pick up the costs of legal action over matters that were an integral part of the legislation that was forced through the House some years ago with Government majorities of 100, ignoring all the criticisms and warnings from Opposition Members.
At that time, the Government, with their usual arrogance, steamrollered through those matters, ignoring every constructive criticism and legitimate question put by Opposition Members. As a result of that arrogance, the Government have some apologising to do. The Minister apologised to us for not apologising. I believe that not only the Minister but all his predecessors and successive Secretaries of State should do more than apologise: they should act on the independent advice of the pensions ombudsman.
There is no need whatever for litigation. The ombudsman's view should prevail and the money should be paid to those former bus employees who are undoubtedly entitled to it. That should be announced by the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency before the general election.
The Government should not shuffle off responsibility yet again. The litigation may not be resolved for years, so the Bill will fall not on this Government but on the next Labour Government. In the best interests of the British


taxpayer, British transport and the pensioners who used to work for those important public services, the Secretary of State should announce today that, having considered the matter and listened to the views expressed in this debate, he has decided that legal action is not necessary and that the money should be paid promptly, expeditiously and in full. That would be the sensible and honourable thing to do.
I declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, to which many of the former bus employees also belong. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), I attended the lobby at the Department of Transport in December with a large number of those former employees, who were eager to talk to the Secretary of State. Instead of having the guts to talk to us and explain why the Government were refusing to hand the money back, the right hon. Gentleman bowled through the lobby, undoubtedly to some chauffeur-driven lunch somewhere in the west end, where he would not be required to offer explanations for incompetence and dishonourable action.
I hope that the decision to embark on costly and lengthy litigation will be abandoned and that, as a matter of urgency, the pensioners will be paid the money to which they are undoubtedly entitled.

Sitting suspended.

Pensioners' Welfare

Mr. David Porter: In continuing the vein of this morning's debates, I am pleased to have the opportunity to turn the House's attention to the welfare of pensioners in general. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), is here to reply. I have already told him that I wish to raise many issues that impact on pensioners, causing them worry and affecting their well-being. My hon. Friend will not be able to answer all those points, but I want to place them on record so that they can be passed to the appropriate Departments of State.
Periodically, anniversaries and the wartime memories of our older citizens bring home to us the debt of gratitude that we owe to our retired constituents. Those same people have given lifetimes of work and service to families, businesses and communities and to the country. Despite all that is provided in direct help, through payments, health care, local authority provision, taxpayers' funding, many of them feel vulnerable. Some fear that they will not have enough left to live on. They want long-term care for independence and security in the increasingly long periods of their crowning years. Everything from prices to heating, from health care to community care, from crime to transport, is pertinent. All those issues are challenges for us as politicians.
In view of the weather so far this winter, it is worth pointing out that the problem of keeping warm in winter is top of the list of older people's concerns. Every winter, we seem to redesign the cold weather payments scheme because it never quite seems to relate to the particular winter being experienced. Payments triggered at meteorological stations by postcode areas may mean that payments are prompt and automatic to those entitled to them, but the weather can be very varied over short distances and the system is not sensitive or flexible enough.
The wind chill factor is very much part of the present debate. I accept that the private Member's Bill that is before the House this week may not be the answer, but the wind chill factor must be acknowledged. Many of my constituents live on, or close to, the coast. The winds off the North sea that we get for most of the year mean that people feel colder. I know that the payments deal with homes being cold rather than with the people in them being cold, but only the best insulated homes can withstand penetrating winds that can cut into the strongest person, never mind the frailest. That has been graphically shown in the past month. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking at cold weather payments with an eye to being more flexible. Surely technology can produce accurate temperatures and wind chill measurements, even street by street.
We need a better way of encouraging the take-up of help if we are to give it. If Age Concern's figures are right and almost a million elderly people who are entitled to support do not claim it, we are not maximising the help that we make available. The Conservative party has been rightly keen to root out welfare scroungers, but we should also address under-claiming if we are to have a system of support through benefits. Many people have a pride that


makes them reluctant to claim their entitlements. That is admirable and I understand it, but perhaps more such payments should be automatic. The automatic triggering of cold weather payments, when the relevant criteria are met, has an appeal, and an efficiency, that could apply to other benefits.
People who are just above the income support level, those who have had no opportunity to build up extra pensions, those who were prevented by war service from so doing, and also people who have worked and saved, all feel at some risk. Some resent how the social security and welfare system helps some people and not others. They often feel that the undeserving are rewarded and the thrifty penalised. The debate and vote in the House on the pay of Members of Parliament brought forth a fresh bout of that feeling.
We must understand such feelings, because the feelings of significant numbers of people are the trends in politics that we have to recognise. Whether such fears are real or groundless is not the point: when people have them, we politicians have to address them. That is why scaremongering for political gain is so irresponsible and hurtful. The allegations in The Guardian late last year, led by the Labour party, that the Government tried to cover up cuts in benefits to war pensioners was merely the latest example of the deliberate distortion, the half-baked twisting, that does so much damage. The deliberate confusion of separate pensions issues can cause real suffering and anguish.
The future of the welfare state is one of the most urgent debates that the country faces. All parties are engaged in variations of radically thinking the unthinkable. So far, the only consensus is that we cannot go on as we are. We can project the number of retired people, but not the European demands on us—especially for bailing out the underfunded German pension scheme—were there ever to be a single currency. We cannot project public demands in terms of health and living costs or the heights that health technology will reach and the bills that will have to be paid for that.
We have discussion papers arguing the full range of ideas from left to right—papers enough to burn and keep warm with. One view is that future national insurance contributions may not be enough, so we should have a funded pension scheme and the voluntary or private sector should replace state welfare. A second view is that all benefits should be abolished and replaced with a basic weekly allowance for all, irrespective of need. To the poor, that would be a subsidy; to the rich, a tax cut. A third view is that we should let universal benefits wither on the vine and redistribute the money to the poorest, but how do we test for the poorest and draw a cut-off line? As ever, the devil is in the detail. A fourth view is that we should divert other spending to pensioners without regard to their incomes.
There is no shortage of ideas, some more acceptable than others, but there is no agreement about the solution. How can there be? While we have this essential debate about the future generations of the retired, we can see how unsettling and alarming such debates may be for those who have already retired. Whether we continue with reform of the welfare state in ways that we cannot anticipate—accepting that we cannot stand still—we must carry with us a majority of those who are the biggest users of the health service: the people who have already contributed the most.
Some statistics are encouraging: 24 per cent. of pensioners are in the least well-off fifth of the population compared with 44 per cent. 17 years ago; 88 per cent. of retired people now have incomes above their state pension. With low inflation, pensioners' savings and spending power are being maintained in a way that they could not have been a generation ago, when inflation touched 27 per cent. However, many pensioners dislike, distrust and reject statistics, and I understand that. We are talking about individual human beings, not numbers. They measure the money that they actually have and form a perception of themselves and the quality of their lives.

Mr. David Nicholson: While it is true that there have been helpful trends in recent years, which we welcome, a relatively new concern has become prominent in my correspondence and, no doubt, in that of my hon. Friend: many of the very elderly fear that if they have to go into nursing homes they may lose their homes and sacrifice their family's inheritance. Should not the Government address that as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Porter: I could not agree more. The Government need to inject urgency into their thinking on that issue, which will clearly be part of the forthcoming general election campaign. Whichever party wins that election, the new Government will have to tackle that problem as the number of elderly people continues to increase. The question of the cost of living and how those people will be able to afford it must be addressed urgently. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Many of my constituents—and, I suspect, people elsewhere—believe that Irish, French and German pensioners do much better than ours. To some extent, pointing out to them the difficulties of making straight comparisons between countries and asking various questions—such as whether they have the same health care, whether the pension is normally their only form of income, what the spending power of their income is, whether there is provision for adult dependants and what the qualifying age for entitlement is—does not necessarily help. British pensioners come out quite well in accurate comparisons, but some pensioners retain the erroneous perception that they are the paupers of Europe.
During the years of evolution of our welfare and health care systems, we have learnt that however much is put into them it can never be enough: demand and expectation rise relentlessly. The quality of life through material possessions rises continually, as does demand for a share of them. Medical science, technology and medical inflation will always outstrip the taxpayer's ability to keep up. We are therefore right to consider future provision. We are right to confront the dilemma of shorter and more flexible working lives—which are constantly changing owing to technology—and longer, healthier, more mobile retirements and the unharnessed resources of our older people.
Factors such as tightening up on benefit fraud, saving on public spending, targeting welfare more accurately and developing a tax regime that allows the economy to create the wealth to spend are all helpful. It also helps to point out the Opposition's increasingly vague plans to link pensions and earnings and the way in which they have dropped their earlier magic wand promises to pensioners. In addition, it helps to highlight Labour's plans to cut the basic pension to pay for giving everyone a pension at 60. However, we must go further than that.
Pensioners have other fears. Both in cities and rural areas, there is a fear of loneliness and isolation. When grandparents were given greater acknowledgement as an integral part of family and community life in a less mobile, more rooted society, those fears were less acute. Pensioners fear physical immobility. It is small wonder that hip replacements are now so popular—some are replaced for the second or third time when they wear out. Many pensioners fear that the transport they need will not exist. Long-time retirees to popular parts of the country, such as my area in East Anglia, often feel more cut off as they become older and perhaps give up their cars.
Local organisations such as DIAL, and associations that help by working with the elderly and disabled, play an extremely effective role in combating that isolation and fear of it. Technologies that help to provide better access to buses and taxis also help, but we could go further. Perhaps tax-friendly assistance could encourage technology to come up with some better ideas to combat that fear.
The fear of not being safe in one's own home or walking the streets is real enough, even if it is not always borne out by the crime figures. The chief constable of Suffolk wrote in the East Anglian Daily Times on 10 September 1996:
There is a disproportionate fear of crime within vulnerable groups such as the elderly. People are fed a constant diet of scare stories of violence. We are not saying no problems exist. We are simply trying to put these stories in context. Statistically, elderly people are the group least likely to become victims of violent crime. However, surveys show they are the group who most fear being attacked. It is not right whole sections of the community should live in fear because of an inaccurate perception of our society.
As well as real crime, we have to deal with the perception of a tidal wave of crime.
Our continued drive for meaningful sentencing helps a lot. It is a pity that the Labour party has not supported our law and order measures for most of the past 17 years. Real support for the victims at the expense of the criminals—such as making the criminals work for their victims—would reassure those who feel at risk. I still believe that giving the courts the option of capital punishment would be welcome, but that is another story for another day.
As we look more closely at long-term health care and as the eligibility criteria for continuing care come fully on stream, another set of fears arises which needs addressing. Controversy over health has, unfortunately, never been far away in my area. That controversy has often been stoked up, and elderly people alarmed, by my opponents, who think that the national health service is theirs alone—notwithstanding the fact that for most of its life the service has been evolving and developing with more being spent on it year on year from taxpayers' money provided by Conservative Governments.
Our local Anglian Harbours NHS trust will be the first in this country to go out of business—by August this year—having lost all its contracts. There have been fears and threats, real and imagined, and rumours of the closure of our district general, the James Paget hospital, and of community hospitals at Lowestoft, Beccles, Southwold and Halesworth. Those fears have all been fanned like forest fires in a gale by the Labour party and its fronts in

the form of various action groups that have alarmed our pensioners. The All Hallows hospital, just over the border at Ditchingham in south Norfolk is outside the NHS and is run by nuns and the London Hospital Management trust. It faces cuts in contracts from East Norfolk and Suffolk health authorities because there are empty beds in the NHS cottage hospitals at Lowestoft and Beccles. It is a dilemma for the health authorities and for our local communities, but the health authorities have shown that they are sensitive to public demands in a local, GP-driven NHS. It does not help older people to be allowed to think that there will be no local provision for them when they need it or to insist on measuring health care on a strict bed count as though that were the only yardstick these days.
The final fear is the sickening feeling among many of my constituents about those who sometimes seem cravenly to hand over all our powers and our Britishness to the European nightmare. Whether the problem involves fishing, beef, lamb or the very pound itself, the generation who gave the best years of their lives fighting German and Japanese tyranny do not, in general, want to see that sacrifice squandered in the creeping way that often occurs. Most of them have had enough—more than enough—whether of being at the so-called heart of Europe or of never being isolated in Europe.
Let us continue with our threefold thrust: we must increase the basic pension in line with prices, encourage private provision on top of that and focus extra help on pensioners who most need it. Let us continue with our low taxing, liberalising, deregulating and privatising of the economy so that we can expand the health and care services for the retired and others in an affordable way. Let us take a hard look at the future provision and do all that we can to enable more people to provide for themselves and their families instead of always thinking that we have to do it for them. Let us harness better the resources of those who live longer and who have more experience of life. Above all, let us work with the retired generations to include them more and carry them along with us more as we—at least Conservative Members—continue to shape the world that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will inherit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the time for today's debate and on his choice of subject. He is known to speak his mind in this place; he is also known for the vigorous way in which he promotes his constituents' interests. We have certainly seen an example of that today.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on his well-timed intervention on the important subject of long-term care. There is not time to go into that subject in great detail, but I know that my hon. Friend will welcome last autumn's White Paper and the proposed measures to enable individuals to ring fence their assets and provide for their long-term care in retirement while protecting the inheritance that they rightly wish to pass to their children and others.
Anyone watching our debate today will have noticed that, as we discuss the important subject of pensioners' welfare, the Labour Front Bench is empty, there are no Liberals present—[Interruption.] Of course, the Scottish


nationalists are here, and one Labour Back Bencher is now present. The poor attendance shows that the soundbite is often given precedence over debates in the House, which is to be deplored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made a number of specific points; I shall pass on his comments to the Ministers involved. He mentioned the Anglian Harbours NHS trust. I am advised that the health authorities do not expect to make significant changes to the location of services, and that it is likely that most clinical and nursing staff will continue to be employed by the new service providers, but my hon. Friend will have to wait for a fuller answer on that subject.
My hon. Friend also mentioned bus services. We now have increased route mileage, but it is the role of local authorities to subsidise socially necessary bus services should they wish to do so. At present, about 15 per cent. of bus route mileage is subsidised in that way. Many local authorities have also exercised their discretion to provide concessionary fares for pensioners. The Government's view, and that of previous Governments, has been that it is better for the local authority, with its knowledge of local circumstances, to decide how best to promote public transport and the needs of vulnerable people in the areas over which they have jurisdiction.
My hon. Friend referred to crime in general and to crime in Suffolk in particular. Crime in Suffolk fell by 3 per cent. in 1995, which will be welcome news to elderly people there, but my hon. Friend's point was that such reductions in crime are not recognised and that a sense of insecurity remains. I accept that there is a good deal in that argument. The police have better powers, there are more police officers and they have the ability to investigate cases more effectively, thanks to measures passed by the Conservative Government, all of which were opposed by the Labour party.
Measures at local level—neighbourhood watch schemes and other projects that try to reduce crime in the local community—have an important role to play. My hon. Friend will know that there are 1,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in Suffolk and that the draft strategy for community safety is currently being prepared. Again, I shall pass on his concerns to the Home Office to see whether anything more can be done to address them.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of cold weather payments. The Government are committed to helping vulnerable people to receive extra help at this difficult time. So far this winter, we have made more than 5 million payments worth over £43 million. The payments, of £8.50 each, are made to claimants who receive income support or jobseeker's allowance when that is income based. The benefit includes all groups with pensioner premium and other vulnerable groups.
It is worth remembering that, under the Labour Government, there was nothing. The Conservative Government have introduced a system that provides an automatic payment, which is triggered when the average temperature over a seven-day period falls below a certain point.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Minister knows, I have campaigned for many years on this issue. He referred to the automatic payment that emerges from the severe weather payment triggering mechanisms. Does he accept that other countries, such as Ireland, produce an

automatic payment that has nothing to do with the temperature and involves those who are in receipt of certain benefits—I think it applies to about 15 benefits in the Republic of Ireland—over the 17-week period? Such a system, if introduced here, would bring a much greater sense of relief to our pensioners and our vulnerable people than does waiting for the current rather vague mechanisms to come into play. In addition, will the Minister tell us what he plans to say in respect of the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, which is to be debated this Friday?

Mr. Heald: The advantage of our current system is that it is automatic and well focused, in that weather stations in various areas trigger the payment, not only when there are seven days when the temperature is at or below 0 deg C, or freezing point, but when those conditions are forecast. The process is quick and enables people to turn the heating up in the knowledge that a payment is on its way. It is not a broad-brush measure, but targeted, and it has been effective in quickly delivering a much needed benefit.
There was a comprehensive review of the cold weather payments scheme last summer, during which the Meteorological Office was asked to advise. Its recommendation was that there should be 70 weather centres, which are now on line. It also advised us on the links with postcodes, and its expert advice was accepted in full and implemented.
The Meteorological Office also gave advice in respect of coastal areas, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is especially concerned. It advised that, although such areas may be windy, they are often warmer than inland areas during the winter months. It is interesting to note that, of the 15 weather stations that have not triggered cold weather payments this winter, 14 are coastal and only one is inland.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, postcodes in his constituency are linked to Coltishall and Wattisham and, so far this winter, Coltishall has triggered cold weather payments twice and Wattisham three times, bringing much needed help to his constituents.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will be aware that the Meteorological Office is advising the Government on wind chill; I do not feel that I can take the matter further today.
Regarding pensioner incomes, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed to the three key strands of the Government's policy, which are: first, to maintain the value of the basic state pension; secondly, to encourage private provision; and, thirdly, to target help on those who are most in need. This year, an extra £1.2 billion pounds compared with 1988 has been focused on the poorest groups. The result is that pensioners' incomes have, on average, risen by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
My hon. Friend also pointed out that expectations are important—people want a system that will provide them with the sort of retirement that they wish for and expect. In that context, occupational pensions and private pension provision are especially important. Britain has £600 billion invested in private pension assets—more than the whole of the European Union. It is important that our pension assets should not be subsumed in or combined with other European pension assets; the Government are determined to fight that and have the support of the Maastricht treaty in doing so.
The British people's absolute protection is to have a Government who stick up for Britain in European negotiations. I deplore the fact that the Labour party has said that it would scrap our veto and make us join the European social chapter. Those measures would damage our sovereignty and damage the interests of people who work in this country or who want jobs.
The change in occupational pensions has been dramatic. The proportion of people retiring each year with occupational pensions and other savings income has risen to 63 per cent.—[Interruption.] Yes, I am back on the subject of pensions, but that is fair enough in a debate on the welfare of pensioners. The proportion has risen from 43 per cent. in 1979 to 63 per cent. now.
We have fulfilled our pledge to maintain the value of the state pension, and it is proposed that, in April, its value will rise to £99.80 a week for a couple and £62.45 a week for a single person. Of course, the headline figure is not the full story, because underpinning occupational and personal pensions, investment income and the state pension is the commitment to target help on those most in need. For example, our measures ensure that pensioner couples have access to income of more than £100 a week, with their housing costs paid, and with other concessions of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Equalisation of pension ages at 65, as enacted in the Pensions Act 1995, is an important measure to ensure that state pensions are affordable in future. The changes that we have introduced are in stark contrast to those proposed by the Labour party, which would equalise state pensions at the age of 60, but with a reduced pension of only £40. That £40 a week would be for life, so it is no wonder that there are no Labour Members here this morning.
Not only would a Labour Government cut the basic pension by about £20 a week for the single pensioner and £37 a week for a couple, which would do little for the welfare of pensioners, but they would deprive pensioners of income support. Retired people in receipt of that £40 a week would, if single, be treated as being in receipt of £60 a week and, if a couple, £98 a week. To me, that is new Labour, new danger. It is half baked to suggest that people should retire earlier, at 60, on a level of pension that might not be adequate for their future needs—and without the safety net of income support, which the Conservative Government have expanded.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing these important issues of concern to my attention and, as appropriate, I shall draw my colleagues' attention to them as well. He made the important point that many of our pensioners served during the war and gave valuable service to this country, thereby allowing us the freedoms we now enjoy. Many of them are among the older group of pensioners. They had saved all their lives, but the value of their savings was destroyed between 1974 and 1979. Under the Labour Government, inflation averaged 15 per cent. because they were a tax and spend Government—a spendthrift Government—and they have not changed their spots. When pensioners come to think about how to vote at the next general election, they should remember that new Labour is still the party that wants to spend money it has not got, to borrow and to reduce this country to beggary.
I welcome the opportunity to reply to this debate. In government, the Conservative party has protected the interests of pensioners. It will do more in that respect in future years to enable pensioners to realise their expectations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move on.

Sustainable Waste Management

1 pm

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): I declare an interest as a joint chairman of the all-party sustainable waste management group. The generation of waste, and its collection and disposal, are of paramount importance to the environment. The Environment Act 1995 was welcome, but the Labour party considered that it could have been strengthened in various ways.
During the passage of the Bill, the introduction of a landfill tax and of packaging recovery regulations was given serious consideration, as were the waste reduction targets set by the European Community and how they should apply to the United Kingdom.
I am interested in landfill because one of the largest landfill and reclamation sites in the United Kingdom, the Welbeck site, is in my constituency. It covers more than a square mile of reclaimed land—reclaimed mostly from colliery spoil and the results of colliery workings. The landfill tax was introduced last October, but a number of questions about it remain unanswered.
The West Yorkshire waste management group of local authorities has raised the matter of the processing of mixed waste from construction sites. The screening and crushing of such mixed waste changes the nature of the material but little. This material can be and is used on waste disposal sites to eliminate the need to quarry new material used for making roads on the sites, to allow vehicles bringing in waste to reach the tips. The material is thus widely sought after.
It is a pity that material from reclaimed or demolition sites which is used for temporary roads is not tax free; it is immensely valuable for this purpose. I hope that the Minister will take up and deal with this point.
It has been the practice for sub-soil used in site restoration, and for waste construction material for site roads, to be provided on landfill sites free of charge. Now, however, we find that building sites are burying unwanted materials, suitably landscaped of course, on their own sites. That means that a source of much valued material for landfill sites is drying up, leading to additional costs. There are also rumours to the effect that fly tipping is on the increase because of the new landfill tax.
The tax was meant to encourage the recycling of waste, because there is not much of a market in the United Kingdom for recyclable materials. The fact that international organisations import low-cost recovered materials means that there is little point in collecting materials here for recycling if they are not eventually to be used. Thus we need to encourage recycling with a stable market in the commodities concerned.
I know of a good example from my constituency. Mr. Steve Gilks, a disabled constituent of mine, got involved in collecting cans, plastics and paper for recycling, using the money raised to help local charities. On 13 December last, he presented a new recording machine to the Normanton talking newspaper for the blind. He told those receiving the gift that it was the result of collecting 300,000 aluminium cans. Between January 1994 and December 1996 he also collected nearly 95,000 tonnes of plastic for recycling.
Mr. Gilks tells me, however, that the bottom is dropping out of this market. He used to get £190 a tonne for plastic; that is now down to £60 a tonne. What is

more, the grant from the Department of the Environment to help him with his work of collecting waste has been cut by half. That clearly makes his task more difficult.
Can the Minister explain why people like Mr. Gilks are not given more encouragement by the Department to continue collecting waste for recycling?
I wish to draw attention to the interesting work commissioned by various organisations. I think in particular of the Industrial Council for Packaging and the Environment. The research examines the relationship between food packaging and the food chain in general. The purpose is to design products so as to minimise waste in the home. The packaging industry has been actively involved in discussions of packaging recovery and in setting up Valpak. It is a collective scheme to capture, recycle and deal with packaging. We owe Valpak our thanks for its work in waste management.
When he comes to consider regulations for the waste industry, the Minister must keep in mind all businesses, both large and small, and he must keep to a minimum the number of excluded companies. All businesses must be encouraged to join Valpak or some such scheme. I hope that the Minister will outline the Department's intentions as regards those schemes.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend knows of my interest in this matter and of my enthusiasm for the work of Valpak. He will also know of the stress and strain involved. We need much more positive Government backing for Valpak if the voluntary agreement is not to fall apart. Valpak and other organisations have been working hard towards the best possible answers. There is no single answer to waste minimisation; it is all about striking the right balance. Once waste starts to be moved along motorways, of course, it begins to damage the economy and the environment.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. As we are aware, the new agency covers all types of environmental issues, but there are fears that the agency's dominant activities will be those that it took over from the former National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I will put my hon. Friend's point to the Minister. Does he envisage that the agency's resources will apply to ensuring that waste management issues are given sufficient focus, with particular reference to packaging waste, which accounts for one third of household waste? The agency must give as much time to that issue as to some of the other issues for which it is responsible.
The Environment Agency has been advised that it should deliver goals without imposing excessive costs. In some European Union member states, packaging recovery has led to excessive cost. In Germany and Austria, citizens pay around £20 per year in inflated products to reach certain targets. The United Kingdom Government suggest that packaging regulations will cost between £5 and £11 per head of population. In view of the low level of energy from waste in Britain, how confident is the Minister that the recycling targets can be met from an extra cost below £11 per person per annum?
Environmental progress can be achieved only by taking a fully integrated approach to waste management, including packaging waste. If the costs to the UK scheme


are to be minimised, how important is it that the legal responsibility for achieving the recovery targets are shared between various participants who lead in marketing packaging goods? We need to have some directive on how to achieve the recovery targets at the minimum cost that is suggested by the Government.
The Government have set a target for the recycling of domestic waste of 25 per cent. of the total by 2000. That can be met only if investment in the infrastructure is encouraged. Local authorities will play a key role in any recycling programme. Recycling performances in the UK are not as advanced as those in many European Union member states. The industry must be given a realistic timetable to meet the first-year obligations for registration and data provision. We can bring about success only by implementing a plan, rather than talking about it.
Will the Minister give some indication as to when he proposes laying the regulations for the packaging recovery industry before Parliament? Does he intend to demonstrate further co-operation with Valpak and the industry by progressing with regulations and using mechanisms to revise the regulations as experience is gained?
I ask for one further point to be clarified: that of wood in packaging, which is not included in any scheme. Friends of the Earth has drawn attention to wood in packaging. Many members in the industry re-use wood for packaging—I refer to pallets. Also, many people in the packaging industry have changed to re-usable plastic crates and trolleys, which is to be commended.
I understand that the European Union has not offered any real guidance on that issue and there may be questions in some EU countries as to wood being included in packaging. When does the Minister expect to report on wood packaging?
I have received many items of briefing material from many sources in the industry, interested organisations and individuals expressing support for and reservations on some waste management proposals. Although that material is welcome, it demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. Obviously, I would have wished to continue the debate for longer, but because of the time limit I must conclude by asking the Minister to answer my questions.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for allowing me to participate briefly in his debate. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Minister's reply. The hon. Gentleman spoke with the authority that I came to expect when I was the Minister taking through the Bill to which he referred, which became the Environment Act 1995. He was always an authority on the Committee, although I did not always agree with him.
I want to dwell just on the packaging regulations, with which my hon. Friend the Minister is heavily involved, as is the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall quote from four letters that I have received from constituency companies, which raise particular points. I do not expect the Minister to answer now. He must concentrate on the points made by the hon. Member for Normanton, whose debate it is, but perhaps he could let me know his reaction later.
The managing director of Ward Packaging Ltd. in Leyland, which employs 110 people making paper sacks and bags, says that
under the proposed regulations Ward Packaging will be burdened with an unrealistic administrative regime to identify its recycling targets, and that of its customers, at a very detailed level and at a significant cost. Having identified these targets I will not have the ability to achieve these targets because the packaging produced will not be within my control or that of my customers.
Smurfit Corrugated, a substantial company throughout the United Kingdom, says:
The problem arises because one part of the Packaging Chain—the big Retailers—might be able to use the considerable amount of used transit packaging that ends up in their stores to offset their obligation against other kinds of packaging, thus avoiding the costs that the other members of the Packaging Chain will have to bear.
Leyprint, a substantial printing company, says:
it puts up the cost of complying with the Regulations for the other parts of the packaging chain. This threatens the viability of industry-wide recovery schemes like Valpak whose costs will consequently increase. As a result, the UK's ability to meet its recovery and recycling targets may be undermined … with a knock-on-impact on profitability and jobs.
Finally in this context, the owner of a small post office in Penwortham says that the introduction of the regulations will force him
to raise my prices and lose customers to supermarkets or to cut my profit margin significantly … The Regulations will make my business very vulnerable to closure … as well as depriving people of a local shop.
Set against that, large retailers maintain that
the regulations will meet the requirement of an effective and equitable method of putting shared producer responsibility into practice.
The Regulations are entirely in line with the industry agreement which was reached on December 15th 1995 between all parts of the packaging chain".
The point with which I leave the House is that, clearly, there is some concern about the perception of what is happening, particularly among smaller operators, who feel deeply concerned about the regulations' implications. I hope that, during his discussions and in eventually making his decisions, my hon. Friend the Minister will take those concerns into account and recognise that it is important to consider every sector of the packaging and production chain in the implementation of financing measures.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has a particular interest in the matter and speaks as chairman of the parliamentary all-party group on sustainable waste management. He also has a particular constituency interest in the matter in the Welbeck site.
The House will have benefited from the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He has quite a background on the subject and strong credentials on the greening of businesses. I have listened carefully to the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of small businesses. He was right to stress the importance of carrying every sector of the packaging industry with the initiative on producer responsibility.
I will deal with the detailed points raised by the hon. Member for Normanton, but I think that it would be helpful if I first set them against the background of the Government's waste strategy. As chairman of the parliamentary group on sustainable waste management, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have embraced a strategy that deals with the issues that he outlined—along with many others—within a comprehensive framework, to encourage good environmental practice and, in particular, sustainable waste management.
We strongly support the need for a sustainable waste strategy. At the end of 1995, we published a White Paper entitled "Making Waste Work", which examined the issues involved in sustainable waste management. The strategy set out in that document takes the principles of sustainable development—development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs—and applies them to the issues of waste management. Its main objectives are that we should reduce the amount of waste that we produce, make the best use of the waste that is produced and adopt practices that minimise risks to the environment and to human health. The foundation on which our strategy is built is the need to accept that the waste that we produce always has the potential to harm our environment, and that we must therefore make the production and management of our waste more sustainable.
We have already done much to promote more sustainable waste management. We have introduced new, improved controls on the management of waste through the registration of carriers, and through duty of care and revised licensing requirements. Those measures are designed to minimise the impact of waste on the environment, and provide a sound regulatory basis for the waste strategy.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's concern about fly tipping. He will appreciate that, before introducing the landfill tax, we were keen to ensure that a sound and effective licensing system was in place. We established such a system, and we intend to ensure that it operates as effectively as we expect it to.
In addition to regulation, we have promoted more sustainable waste management options through our support for economic instruments, such as recycling credits and the non-fossil fuel obligation. On 1 October last year we introduced the landfill tax, whose objectives—broadly speaking—are essentially environmental, and, we believe, send the right economic and environmental messages to waste producers. The tax will make those producers aware of the true costs of their activities, and will give them a further incentive to reduce waste production and recover more value from the waste that is produced.
The hon. Member for Normanton expressed concern about the processing of mixed waste from construction sites. He will know that waste from such sites forms a significant component of the waste that goes to landfill. Our overall objective is to reduce the proportion that goes to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent. by the time that we have specified; but, although I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept the need to reduce that proportion, we are always prepared to consider particular cases, and to take environmental merits into account. Along with Customs and Excise, we shall be considering any anomalies that arise as a consequence of the introduction of the tax, although we shall need time in which to undertake the review. While we are aware of the issues

raised by the hon. Gentleman, he will appreciate the need to set them against the aim of reducing the amount of waste that goes into landfill, which is one of the less sustainable—although sometimes necessary—forms of waste management.
The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Mr. Gilks, the gentleman in his constituency who spoke to the Normanton talking newspaper for the blind. I am sure that the House applauds such voluntary efforts, which have an important and environmentally beneficial impact. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we provide considerable support for those who undertake such activities—through, for example, the environmental action fund and, in future, the landfill environmental bodies that will come into being as part and parcel of the landfill tax. Encouragement is given to recycling and good practice in a variety of ways, including the producer responsibility initiative referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I promise him, however, that I will examine the particular case of Mr. Gilks and the grant that he mentioned.
Now that I have dealt with those issues arising from the landfill tax, I feel that I should re-emphasise the targets that we have set. We aim to reduce the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent., and to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste, by 2005. By the end of 1998, once we have more reliable data on which to base our target, we shall set a target for overall waste reduction. We have also established a wide range of secondary targets: for example, our aim to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000. That target, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an important secondary target. We want to find ways of increasing the amount of recycling by households.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister probably knows as well as I do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out, the crucial factor is the active participation and leadership of local authorities. Many of us believe that, if we are to meet the targets that we all want to meet, local authorities must be given more incentives to take a lead and to be active partners with the private sector. They need encouragement, rather than being knocked back by the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Clappison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to encourage good practice on the part of local authorities, but I do not think that there are many examples of the Department of the Environment knocking them back. We want to spread good practice wherever possible, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, practice varies from authority to authority.
The hon. Member for Normanton also mentioned producer responsibility, an important initiative that we have advanced considerably. Following extensive consultation with the packaging business, Government and industry have developed a joint approach for enhanced levels of recovery and recycling of packaging waste to be achieved by 2001. That means, in effect, nearly doubling the amount of packaging waste recovered or recycled in the United Kingdom.
Before the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) leaves the Chamber, may I answer the point that he made about Government leadership? I think


that the Government have given a lead, but the hon. Gentleman should not doubt that, throughout the process, we have wanted to listen to the voice of industry. We have considered it important to continue to work with industry, and have felt that initiatives should come from it. No one should be under any misapprehension, and imagine that our wish to work with industry and wait for it to develop its views constitutes a lack of leadership. For the reasons outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, it is important for all the businesses concerned—including the small businesses to which he referred—to be brought on board. We think that we have achieved that, and that industry is now working with us.
Industry has always contended—and the Government have endorsed its view—that, if the United Kingdom is to attain the EC directive targets and comply with the requirements of that directive, the full co-operation and commitment of all sectors of the packaging chain will be needed. Only then will we be in a position to maximise industry's approach to producer responsibility for packaging. We have therefore consulted widely, taking into account a wide range of views from all sectors of industry—including major trade associations and the Confederation of British Industry—and the views of the Packaging Advisory Committee. On 18 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the modifications that we will be making to the draft regulations that were issued for consultation in July. The amendments reflect the responses to that consultation, and maintain the consensus that has been generated over the past few years. We will lay the regulations before the House very shortly.
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about that. It is important for the obligation to extend widely, to as many firms as possible, and, in particular, for "free riders" to be deterred. We have been concerned about that throughout the process. We want a fair, wide-ranging and equitable system: that is the obligation.
The collective scheme—Valpak—is an important part of that. We have made it clear that we will leave it open to firms to choose individual routes if they wish to do so, although the collective scheme is there if they wish to take advantage of it. It is important for the Government not to place industry in a regulatory straitjacket but to allow it as much flexibility as possible to choose its preferred route and to express its views.
As time is running out, I shall respond to the other points made by the hon. Member for Normanton by writing to him. I should, however, emphasise to him and to the House that the Government have a wide-ranging and comprehensive strategy on this matter which is based on targets that we have set. We have ambitions to improve waste management as part of our overall environmental policy. We believe that we have already achieved a great deal, and we have created the mechanisms to achieve a great deal more in the future. That is our ambition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Time is up.

Tourism (North-West)

Mr. Nigel Evans: Only a few months ago, Newsweek International, a reputable international magazine, carried the front-page headline, "Cool Britannia", and went on to explain how Britain was such a wonderful place for tourists to visit. Those of us who live in the United Kingdom already knew that, but such headlines will increase the growth of tourism in the UK, which has already grown so much. I believe that, as Britain has given away some of its unskilled manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies, we have developed more sophisticated methods of earning money—one of which is tourism, the world's fastest growing industry.
We had an extremely successful year in 1995. There were 24 million visits to the UK—a 14 per cent. increase on the previous year—which brought in £12 billion to the UK economy. The UK tourist industry now employs almost 2 million people, which is 7 per cent. of the work force and a 31 per cent. increase on the figure 10 years ago. The industry has the potential to create up to 1 million more jobs over the next 10 years.
Tourism is a key economic activity in the area covered by the north-west tourist board, which includes Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside. Last year, visitors to the region spent slightly less than £1.5 billion, which accounts for at least 3 per cent. of the local gross domestic product. The figure is even higher in some parts of the region, such as in my constituency in the Ribble valley, and in Blackpool.
It is not surprising that so many jobs are dependent on tourism. In the most recent year for which figures are available, Blackpool, for example, attracted 19 million tourists, and even politicians trek there every two years. Its pleasure beach is Britain's No. 1 tourist attraction, with slightly fewer than 7.5 million visitors a year. Two years ago, its rollercoaster—the "Pepsi Max Big One"—was erected as a monument to my political career: it has as many ups as downs, and it takes ages to get up but only seconds to get down. Next year, the pleasure beach will open another ride, called the "Spaceshot", which represents a £2 million investment. We shall have to wait to see whose political career that will mirror.
The north-west also has less glitzy attractions. My constituency has a large area of outstanding natural beauty, which tourists visit to see historic abbeys, market towns and the forest of Boland. I congratulate the staff of the Clitheroe tourist office on their excellent and helpful approach to tourists. They always have a friendly smile when one goes there, and they are well stocked with leaflets and ready with helpful advice on where to go and stay in the area. I also congratulate them on their imaginative Internet website, which is available worldwide.
We have other tourist areas, such as Park Hall, in Charnock Richard, Chorley—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover)—which attracts many visitors.

Mr. Den Dover: Although I accept that Park Hall attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year and is a major regional tourist attraction, is my hon. Friend aware of misgivings in the south-east of my


constituency, in Rivington, about North West Water and United Utilities' promotion of the Lever Park Bill, to which I and other hon. Members will object?
We object because Lord Leverhulme, who established the Unilever empire, gave that land, and did not want it commercialised or entry or parking charges made. The Bill's spirit is to over-commercialise the park. I am against such commercialisation—which is appropriate at Park Hall but not at the heritage site left by Lord Leverhulme, whose wishes we should honour.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I am aware of that situation. We must be very careful to ensure that we have areas to which we can attract tourists, and other areas that should perhaps be left unspoilt and not over-commercialised. In my constituency, Castle Cement has filed plans to quarry across the road from its current operation. The last thing that tourists would want to see in an area attempting to attract tourists is massive quarrying. That case is similar to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Tourism creates jobs not only in the tourist sector but in non-tourist sectors—including shops, wholesalers and other providers of goods or consumables. It also creates jobs in transport, which is a massive job provider in the north-west. Manchester airport employs 14,000 people directly, and another 50,000 people in the region are dependent on the facility. The airport has plans to expand, which would double the number of off-site workers who are dependent on it. Its planned expansion includes a second runway, which I shall say more about.
London is an important magnet to attract tourists to the UK, but we must not be over-dependent on it. As world tourism increases, I want the United Kingdom to win its fair share of tourists, but I also want the regions to win their fair share of UK tourism. I have often said in the House that the Ribble valley is an extremely beautiful place and that I am proud of it. When tourists go there, I know that they enjoy its beautiful scenery. However, we are not attracting as many tourists as I would like.
For a variety of reasons, too many tourists stay in London, and are not aware of our wealth of historical sites, the beauty of our countryside, our restaurants or the number of things to do if they were to leave the capital and explore the provinces. The M25 must be regarded as a way out of London for tourists, not as a contraption to keep them in it. Therefore, we should ensure that tourists are attracted into the regions. Success in that drive will not only bring delight to those who discover the joys of the provinces, but will help local economies, such as that in the north-west.
In my constituency, for example, there are many hotels, restaurants and pubs which have won national awards. I am sure that visitors from other countries would enjoy visiting such places as the Inn at Whitewell, which this year won the pub of the year award. It is located in the area to which, allegedly, the Queen would like to retire—I suspect, not only for the beauty of the pub but for the beauty of the region. It is a smashing hotel.
We also have a restaurant called Heathcotes, which is renowned across the north-west and has won two Michelin stars, two Egon Ronay stars and other awards. The Gibbon Bridge hotel, in beautiful Chipping, boasts superb food and a beautiful garden setting. Northcote Manor is a hotel and restaurant, in Langho, which boasts

a Michelin star and has recently been expanded to accommodate increased demand by tourists in the area. Foxfields hotel is nearby, and the Myton Fold Farm hotel boasts excellent accommodation, and has recently built a golf course.
There are countless other fine hotels and pubs. If I were to try to list them all, the Minister would not have a chance to respond to this debate. However, they prove that one does not have to visit only London to enjoy what Britain has to offer. There are many extremely high-quality services and facilities outside London.
Approximately 200,000 people are employed or self-employed in tourism and hospitality in the regions, which is more than 6 per cent. of the area's work force. In the region, the number employed in those sectors is at least as large as the number employed in defence, aerospace, automotive, textiles and clothing. It is vital that all regions are given at least equal billing with London.
On a practical level, the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority should ensure that all ports and airports into Britain, including the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo, display advertisements promoting the provinces. There should be kiosks to ensure that people who want to get out of London can do so, and are provided with all the necessary information.
The British Tourist Authority is promoting a package in the United States with Continental Airlines, and uses Manchester airport as the gateway for visitors to Britain. That is a fantastic idea, representing exactly the type of advertising we require to boost regional tourism. However, I should like to see more of it—more advertising like the highly successful campaign in Scandinavia promoting Manchester as a gateway for Swedes and Finns. I think that such campaigns could bring in extra tourism and business.
On a slightly different note, the Government greatly support the industry by helping the BTA and will next year subsidise it to the tune of £35 million. I also thank the Government for their grant of £7.5 million to the Lancashire Tourism Partnership, to help it to boost its tourism strategy. However, I hope that we can find still more imaginative ways to help new businesses and ideas in the area.
I congratulate the BTA on its Internet pages, but I wish that they contained more emphasis on attractions in the north-west. I was impressed by the BTA's clever idea of including a movie map showing film and television locations in Britain, many of which are in the north-west.
My only criticism of the map is that it misses off the film "Whistle Down the Wind". If I have mentioned that film once in the Chamber, I have mentioned it many times. It is set in the village of Downham in my constituency. One of the beauties of the place is that it is still wholly unspoilt, and the same as it was when that excellent film was made many years ago. We also have the Granada Television studios, home of Britain's longest-running and much-loved soap, "Coronation Street". There is a superb themed attraction next to the studios, which attracts many visitors.
On 1 April last year, Manchester airport celebrated 10 years as a public limited company. Since 1985, it has been voted the best United Kingdom airport five times by readers of travel trade magazines, and has been rated the world's best airport in a survey of airline passengers carried out by the International Air Transport Association.


They are just some of the awards that it has won. They are fantastic achievements, of which the airport and everyone who works there can rightly be proud.
The airport employs massive numbers of people, and provides indirect employment for many more. It currently serves 15 million passengers a year, and 30 per cent. of all UK holiday flights depart from Manchester. The key to the airport's success is expansion. I believe that it hopes to handle 30 million passengers a year by 2005. That means a doubling of traffic in under 10 years, and millions more visitors to the regions. In turn, the number of jobs created by the airport will be greatly increased.
Manchester airport has started a £550 million, 10-year capital spending programme, which includes a major redevelopment of the terminals, expanded rail links, a high-level fully enclosed walkway between the railway station and terminal 2, an integrated public transport exchange linking the rail and bus/coach stations, and, if the proposal goes ahead, the metrolink extension to the airport. These will all provide employment, and facilitate the arrival and journey on of any visitor.
The major plank of the programme, however, is the granting of planning permission for the second runway. I hope that the announcement today will give Manchester airport, which is already the third largest in the UK, the opportunity further to enhance its reputation as the jewel in the crown of regional airports. As it is one of the top 20 airports in the world at the moment, the expansion will surely put it at least in the top 10, and may give relief to Heathrow slots which are always under pressure. I hope that we shall hear some good news about the second runway at Manchester later today.
I must, however, issue a word of caution. There is much enthusiasm about the expansion of Manchester airport, and a further boost would be to facilitate an open skies policy in the UK. I fully understand how that would attract further carriers to Manchester, which would mean more tourists coming to the region. However, that must not be at the price of encouraging carriers to regard an open skies policy as an open door policy—an invitation to them to walk over us and not reciprocate with any deals.
I warn the chairman of Manchester airport, Labour Councillor Graham Stringer, that he should not turn the issue into a party political matter. He should not abuse his position as chairman of the airport by saying that it is the Government's fault that we do not currently have an open skies policy. No one has done more to help and promote Manchester airport and tourism than the Conservative Government.
Councillor Stringer should perhaps turn his attention to some of the damaging proposals that Labour might implement if the nightmare came true and it formed the next Government. Tourism has much to fear from a Labour Government, who would wreck it by imposing damaging and costly burdens. A Labour Government would sign up to the social chapter and adopt a minimum wage, thus undermining the competitiveness of that industry. The 48-hour directive is already threatening the industry—although we are fighting tooth and nail against its introduction, the Labour party would embrace it.
The cost of extending the rights of full-time staff to part-time and temporary employees—new Labour's tourism tax—would have to be met by consumers, who

would face higher prices, and by those who would lose their jobs as a result. A Labour Government would also extend the powers of European Union institutions to interfere specifically in tourism. For example, the party has stated:
we do see the need for better and more co-ordinated tourism action in EU institutions.
From what we can see of Labour's plans for the industry, it talks tough but, in reality, the only people who would find it tough are those working in tourism. Everyone needs to know that Labour poses a serious threat to the tourism and leisure industry. For those people, it certainly would end all in tears.
Another way to boost tourism in the north-west would be quickly to upgrade the north-west coast main line to ensure that people who start their holiday in London are able to get to the north-west and other regions more speedily. I must applaud the work done by Regional Railways in the north-west, which has sent me a host of pamphlets advertising schemes in operation to show tourists what is on offer and inform them that they can take the train to various events. The rail companies liaise with the promoters of many special events, and put on special trains so that people can reach their destination in comfort.
One bugbear is that travelling to the north-west from London means using the M6. Although I applaud the expansion of that motorway, people travelling on a Friday or Sunday will find their journey extended by at least an hour as they try to get through Birmingham. I hope that we can direct our attention to freeing that bottleneck. Of course, some tourists want to travel from London by car because they have large families or want to travel beyond the region.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider my suggestions. I know that he is a doughty fighter for tourists. He knows my area well and recognises the importance of tourism for the north-west, not only the present position but the potential for the future. If we continue our commitment to tourism into the next century, it will be good news for those people looking for work in the north-west and who see their future in that industry.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this important debate. He is exceptionally well informed on tourism matters, and always works hard to ensure that the interests of his constituents and constituency are brought to the notice of the House.
I am also pleased that the House has another opportunity to debate tourism generally as well as the particular aspects affecting my hon. Friend's constituency so soon after we last did so on 29 November. It is a measure of the importance that hon. Members now place on tourism that this is the eighth debate on the subject in the House in the present Parliament.
The Government have long recognised the economic importance of tourism. Indeed, the Confederation of British Industry recently held a major conference on the future of Britain's tourism industry, which was addressed by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the Deputy Prime Minister.
Tourism is set to be the world's biggest industry by the year 2000. It already generates £37 billion of income annually in the United Kingdom, and employs 1.8 million people. The UK welcomed a record 24 million overseas visitors in 1995, 1.2 million of whom chose to go to the north-west. Our earnings from overseas visitors were £12.1 billion, with £1.4 billion being spent in the north-west.
North-west trade and enterprise councils have identified tourism as one of the main sectors in the region offering good employment prospects. They estimate that the hotel and catering sector is likely to create 25,000 new jobs in the region before the millennium. That reflects the national picture—tourism has created one in five jobs over the past three years. If current trends continue, tourism will be a larger employer than manufacturing by the year 2012.
The latest World Tourism Organisation figures show that, in 1995, the UK's share of world tourism receipts rose from 4.4 per cent. to 5 per cent., reversing a 10-year downward trend. We are now in the top five in the international tourism league, and we must make sure that that improvement is sustained.
I am pleased that the north-west's tourism profile has been greatly enhanced. Former industrial areas have been transformed from derelict wastelands into thriving visitor locales, often using the area's rich industrial heritage.
There are many examples of how the region has responded positively to new opportunities for development. In Manchester, for example, the Castlefield project employs urban rangers to guide visitors and conserve the site, while the success of the Granada studio tours, which my hon. Friend mentioned, has greatly boosted the area. Liverpool's Albert dock and the King's dock have been regenerated as tourist attractions, with 5.5 million visits a year, creating over 2,000 jobs. The Hamilton quarter on the south side of the Mersey is another area in the process of regeneration. Wigan now has a heritage centre that is a shining example of the regeneration that can be achieved through tourism.
Partnership between private business, local authorities and the regional tourist boards is vital in this process. The Government have provided funding through the national lottery and the single regeneration budget. The former has provided £64 million for the new Lowry centre in Salford. Such projects will undoubtedly strengthen the tourism appeal of the north-west. Blackpool has been granted £19.3 million from the single regeneration budget, and Morecambe £4.3 million. In addition, many projects in the north-west benefit from the European regional development fund.
Although Manchester may be disappointed that Wembley has been designated as the site for the English national sports stadium, the city will certainly applaud the Sports Council's announcement that Manchester is to receive lottery awards of £60 million for a 50,000-to-60,000 capacity all-seater stadium and £20 million for a swimming pool complex. Those awards will enable the city to have the necessary facilities in place to host the 2002 Commonwealth games, which will further heighten the international profile of the north-west.
Blackpool remains the largest and most popular seaside resort in Europe. I am pleased that its central and north beaches were able to meet the EU's bathing water cleanliness standard last year.
The Department of National Heritage spends almost £1 billion a year, much of it on museums, galleries, the heritage and the arts, all of which are important generators of domestic and overseas tourism.
We have allocated £35 million to the British Tourist Authority for 1997–98, which is a slight reduction on this year, but more than it had ever received before that. That level of funding will allow the BTA to continue its excellent work. We should not forget that the BTA has had great success in attracting funding from the private sector, raising around £16 million this year.
Funding to the English tourist board has been maintained at its previously planned level, before allowing for a reallocation of funds to the Government's new sector challenge fund, giving a net figure of £9.9 million. That will allow the board to continue its important work on improving classification schemes, looking for ways to grow the domestic market, and helping the industry to improve its product.
It may sometimes appear to people in the north-west that we concentrate too much of our effort on attracting overseas visitors to London. My hon. Friend rightly raised that important point. We have indeed given extra money to the Focus London campaign, because research clearly shows that London is our greatest asset in attracting overseas visitors to this country. If Britain is to do well in the world tourism market, we need London to do well. It is the principal gateway to Britain.
However, once visitors have been motivated to come here, we can show what the country as a whole has to offer, and encourage them to travel around and stay elsewhere. In fact, the need to spread tourism more widely has been central to the campaign. I am sure the north-west will benefit greatly from that in the long term.
There is more to the Government's support for tourism than provision of funds. We have completed the programmes set out in "Tourism—Competing with the Best" nearly two years ago. With the Secretary of State's tourism advisory forum, which brings together representatives from the tourist boards, consumer groups, local government and the industry, including the Confederation of British Industry, we are now developing the next phase of our strategy.
The strategy will concentrate on six key areas: championing and raising the profile of tourism; increasing competitiveness; improving the quality of the tourism product; improving service quality; making marketing more effective; and managing the impact of tourism. It will provide a clear statement of our objectives for tourism, and will set an agenda for future action.
For the strategy to succeed, we need the participation of all the key players—central and local government, the tourist boards and all the many sectors of the industry must work together. We will make every effort to ensure that the new strategy fully involves the industry and meets the needs and concerns of all parts of the country, including the north-west.
Tourism is dominated by small enterprise, having around 250,000 small businesses. The Government recognise the key role played by small firms in the economy, providing new ideas, new services and new jobs. Small firms need stability, a growing economy, low inflation and low interest rates. Our policies provide an environment in which they can succeed.
Our economy is in its fifth year of sustained growth, and we have had the longest period of low inflation for almost half a century. That is particularly beneficial to tourism, because those are the economic conditions in which leisure and business travel can thrive. Over the past 25 years, average real household disposable income has risen by 45 per cent.
The Budget includes measures to help small business: in addition to the reduction in the basic rate of income tax, corporation tax on small companies is cut to 23p, the business rate on small properties is frozen next year, and the VAT registration threshold is increased. After these changes, the UK tax rate on company profits up to £300,000 will be the lowest in the EU.
We have worked with other Government Departments significantly to reduce the burden of regulation on the industry. We want fewer, simpler, better regulations. To that end, we have simplified the rules on food hygiene, fire safety and electricity in the workplace, we have created a much less cumbersome regime on signposting, and we have extended opening hours for pubs. Our many deregulatory reforms are of particular benefit to small firms. All legislative proposals that affect them now include a small firms litmus test to show the impact of legislation on the sector.
We have been looking particularly closely at the EU working time directive. The Government continue to regard its imposition as unreasonable, and we intend to insist on changes to the treaty to ensure that social measures are never again imposed on the UK in this way.
Of course we must obey the law, but we are determined that there will be no gold plating of this, or any other, European regulation when it is implemented in the UK. We have been discussing with representatives of the industry the possible effects of the directive on their business, and will ensure that their views are fully taken into account. There are derogations for tourism in the directive, and we intend to ensure that the industry receives the fullest possible benefit. No one can doubt the

cost of such measures to the industry. The British Hospitality Association has suggested that the cost to its sector might be as much as £100 million.
We continue to resist the imposition of the social chapter, for the same reason. It is not difficult to see why the latest survey of the UK economy by the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development records a steady drop in structural unemployment, and concludes:
the better jobs and inflation record reflects the UK's greater exposure to market forces and competition.
The well-being of tourism depends on the kind of flexible labour market policies that the Government pursue, which the social chapter would destroy. A study by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics shows that the UK has the second lowest non-wage labour costs in the EU, with only Denmark's being lower. The UK is the only G7 country to have seen a fall in the rate of non-wage labour costs since 1990.
The majority of research evidence supports the Government's view that a national minimum wage would lead to considerable job losses, particularly among more vulnerable young and unskilled workers. Research by the Department for Education and Employment shows that a national minimum wage set at £4.15 per hour, as advocated by some trade unions, could cost 950,000 jobs nationally if pay differentials were half restored, and 1.8 million jobs if they were fully restored. It is, sadly, significant that the EU countries with a minimum wage and the social chapter, such as France and Spain, have very high levels of youth unemployment.
Our policies aim to deliver the maximum economic and social benefits from tourism. Tourism is a major source of jobs, both now and for the future. It is a major contributor to economic regeneration, and provides valuable income to our cultural heritage, which is so important to the quality of life. Government policies are designed to ensure that Britain strengthens its position as one of the world's leading tourism destinations, and the north-west is well placed to benefit from that continued success.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet. [9231]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): We enjoy excellent relations with the kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan.
Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese there. That remains our view.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plight of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal merits much greater international attention? Is he satisfied that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is sufficiently proactive in seeking a proper settlement by involving an independent panel to verify the nationality status of those seeking to return to Bhutan? Does he agree that we should drop the easy, quick solution of appeasement and that we should not forget the real plight of the refugees?

Dr. Fox: We believe that the UNHCR is doing an excellent job. It runs camps for about 90,000 refugees in Bhutan in liaison with Save the Children and other non-governmental organisations. The Government have contributed about £475,000 to those camps in the past three years to support the refugees. We take the plight of the refugees very seriously. I raised the issue specifically with Prime Minister Deuba when I visited Nepal last year and again when he visited London this year. We raise the issue at every opportunity, but ultimately it is a matter for the Bhutan and Nepalese Governments.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's proposals to assist the middle east peace process in 1997. [9233]

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east. [9243]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I warmly welcome the agreement on redeployment of Israeli troops in Hebron. The agreement is a vital step in unblocking the middle east peace process: it follows persistent efforts on all sides. King Hussein's intervention was particularly helpful, building on the efforts of the United States and the rest of the international community. It is now important to move on swiftly to other outstanding elements of the interim agreement. The

Syrian and Lebanese tracks should also be urgently pursued. The peace process must continue to move forward.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. All reasonable people will join him in whole-heartedly welcoming the agreement. Does he agree that one of the remaining issues is the timetable which the agreement has set for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the west bank? Is it not important that it includes all areas except the settlements and Jerusalem, which have been left for final status discussions? Does the Foreign Secretary see ways in which the British Government can help to ensure that progress is made on that and the other tracks of the peace agreement that he mentioned?

Mr. Rifkind: The Hebron deal needs to be followed swiftly by implementation of the other outstanding elements of the interim agreement: redeployment in areas B and C on the west bank, the release of Palestinian prisoners and free passage between the west bank and Gaza.

Mr. Burden: May I add my welcome to today's announcement of the agreement and express my hope that it means that the building blocks of a lasting peace in the middle east are being put back in place? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that many of the recent difficulties have arisen from prevarication and delay in the implementation of existing agreements? I hope that today's announcement will herald a way of tackling the outstanding issues—many of which he referred to, such as the issue of prisoners, communications between the west bank and Gaza and the withdrawal from rural areas—rather than heralding any further delays in those matters.

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, the new element was the election of a different Israeli Government as a result of the Israeli general election, which has led to a period of considerable uncertainty. The decision to reach agreement on Hebron is however a very, very decisive step in the right direction. It means that for the first time Mr. Netanyahu and his Government have formally committed themselves to a crucial part of the Oslo peace process and the commitments that their predecessors were also trying to take forward. It could be the start of a very important and welcome new phase in the negotiations.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I accept the views expressed by everyone—I am sure—in the House on the crucial nature of the agreement. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind in any discussions with Israeli Ministers that there are wider issues too? The future economic development of the Palestinians is crucial, and without free movement between the Gaza strip, the west bank and east Jerusalem, where many Palestinians want to work, it could be threatened. Will he bring all his influence to bear on bringing sense to that matter?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the matter is crucial. I raised it directly with Mr. Netanyahu, both when I saw him in Israel and when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I saw him in Lisbon. We have also encouraged through the European Union a study of the economic needs of the Palestinians in the west bank and of Gaza


and hope that it will lead to rapid improvements, particularly in access for, and free movement of, those who live in those territories.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that coalition government and a multi-party Cabinet, which is the result of the system of proportional representation that this country should certainly avoid, gave Prime Minister Netanyahu particular difficulties in reaching the agreement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend therefore accept that the Israeli Prime Minister deserves not only congratulations on his persistence and determination in reaching the agreement but our continuing support in bringing the other parties—Syria and Lebanon especially—to the negotiating table, so that further progress can be made?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The electoral arrangements in Israel certainly gave rise to the difficulties referred to, but its recent constitutional changes also provided for the direct election of the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether that innovation would be more welcome in this country than proportional representation.

Mr. Janner: I welcome the agreement fully. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel is a turbulent democracy and that one of the problems with all democracies, including our own, is that all too often they elect bad Governments for whom we did not vote?

Mr. Rifkind: I believe that the electorate are always supreme. I appreciate why that consideration may not appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Cyril Townsend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the part played by King Hussein in reaching the agreement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, unless very firm action is taken to prevent the expansion of the settlements and the construction of new ones, much of what we have been talking about will be totally swept away by attacks on the ground?

Mr. Rifkind: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent knighthood.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the achievements of the past few days could be overtaken if there were intemperate behaviour, with regard to either expansion of settlements or other actions that might be seen as particularly provocative.

Mr. Fatchett: I add the Opposition's support for and pleasure at the agreement that has been signed. I offer our thanks to all those who have assisted in that process and especially draw attention to the very positive contribution made by King Hussein of Jordan, which will be widely recognised and acknowledged as a key element in the peace process.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the agreement has to be seen as one step on the road of the peace process and that the crucial issue is that it is up and running again? Does he also agree that civilised opinion throughout the world would be opposed to all those who tried to prevent the implementation of this agreement? Will the Foreign

Secretary tell the House what steps he will take to assist the continued development of the peace process, in the clear knowledge that any attempt to halt that process is damaging to the interests of the people of both Israel and Palestine?

Mr. Rifkind: King Hussein has been a superb force for moderation and progress over many years. His latest contribution deserves the tribute of the House and of all those interested in peace in the middle east.
For the future, the United Kingdom Government believe strongly that the role of the international community is to assist those who are working for peace. We do not believe that separate initiatives by this country or Europe as opposed to America would be productive. We believe that the western countries can work together and help in a constructive way to facilitate the peace process.

Former Yugoslavia

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current developments in former Yugoslavia. [9234]

Mr. Rifkind: Throughout this crisis, the British Government have been pressing President Milosevic in the clearest possible terms to accept democratic principles and to recognise the opposition victories. On 2 December and on subsequent occasions, I called on President Milosevic to respect democratic institutions and the election results. Moreover, we have backed those words with action. We cancelled the December visit to the United Kingdom of the Deputy Prime Minister of the former Republic of Yugoslavia and we have strongly supported the EU decision to suspend the planned extension of trade concessions to Belgrade. We have also invited a leading member of the Serbian opposition to London. We will continue to maintain this pressure for as long as it is necessary.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his encouraging words. As he knows, half a million people have been out on the streets of Belgrade for 55 days protesting against a thoroughly discredited regime. Much as I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks, is he aware that the public in Belgrade are under the impression that Her Majesty's Government have not been as supportive of the opposition as they have been? Will he press the endeavours that he has described to give public and unequivocal support to the opposition, who are undoubtedly reflecting the will of the people of Yugoslavia today?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The cancellation of the visit to this country by the Deputy Prime Minister of the former Republic of Yugoslavia goes beyond the action of any other European Union member state. We strongly identify with all those who are seeking respect for democratic elections and for the result of the elections that have already taken place. There has been some limited progress in the various concessions about which we have heard recently, but we will continue to


apply national pressure and pressure along with our friends and allies until President Milosevic shows total respect for the democratic process.

Mr. Wareing: I support the Government's attitude in respect of the manipulation of elections in Serbia. However, can the Foreign Secretary explain why there is a difference between our attitude to Serbia and our attitude to Croatia? Not long ago, the mayor of Zagreb was refused office by President Tudjman; yet, while sanctions are threatened against Serbia, Croatia is rewarded with a place in the Council of Europe. What is the explanation?

Mr. Rifkind: We certainly do not have double standards. Along with other member states, we were cautious about Croatia's application to join the Council of Europe, and it perhaps took longer than had been anticipated. We attach importance to the significant events to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the disturbing events in Belgrade in recent weeks show where most of the blame lies for the appalling misery that has been inflicted on the former Yugoslavia in recent years? Do not those events justify the warnings that some of us gave as long ago as 1991?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that there has ever been any disagreement about the disgraceful way in which Mr. Milosevic encouraged many of the problems that existed in not only his country but Bosnia-Herzegovina to evolve. In so far as there were differences of view, they were not about the origin of many of the problems but were about the best way to address them in subsequent years.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Looking a little further on Yugoslavia, is not one of the most substantial obstacles to the return of normality to that country the presence of so many anti-personnel land mines, which were scattered indiscriminately by all sides in the conflict? What steps are being taken to clear those land mines, which take their toll of civilians rather than soldiers? In view of the increasing support for a ban from former senior military commanders and other notable figures, why will the Government not take a lead and, once and for all, abandon the production, use, export and sale of all anti-personnel land mines?

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the statement by a Red Cross official this morning welcoming the Government's policy. That policy is simple and straightforward: we support a multilateral, universal ban on land mines, as called for in several quarters. We welcome the support given to that policy, as does the Red Cross.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I associate the Opposition in full with the Government's criticisms of the refusal by President Milosevic to accept the democratic outcome of elections? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if it is the case that the public in Belgrade are not aware of those criticisms, it may be because television is totally under the control of President Milosevic? Have not the events of the past few weeks demonstrated how much further the president must travel to guarantee the freedom of the

broadcasting media and the independence of the supreme courts? Finally, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that there can be no question of President Milosevic receiving the aid that he was promised in the Dayton agreement unless he carries out his obligations to deliver democracy to Serbia and to deliver war criminals to the international tribunal?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. One of the most important ways in which freedom is suppressed in that country is by control over the media, and one of the successful examples of international pressure has been the efforts led by the United Kingdom to allow the reopening of the independent radio station that Mr. Milosevic closed in December. That station is now functioning again and, through that means and others, the people of that country are gaining access to news of what is going on in the world.

Indonesia

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current British relations with the Indonesian Government. [9236]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Indonesia's size and strategic location make it a major player in south-east Asia and a growing market for British exports. The Government attach great importance to the bilateral political and economic relationship.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister justify to the House today the reasons for the Government's agreement to the export of 50 armoured vehicles and associated water cannon to Indonesia? Will he explain what monitoring the Government will undertake of their end use and will he tell the House what he intends to do if those materials are used for the purposes of repression? Will he give a clear indication that the Government do not support the repressive regime in Indonesia?

Mr. Hanley: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, all sovereign states enjoy the right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN charter and all applications to export defence equipment are examined regularly on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria and internationally agreed guidelines. The human rights issue is a key factor and, as the House will know, not all applications are approved. Details of licenses approved and refused are placed in the Library of the House of Commons by equipment category. We have refused entirely at least 11 licences for Indonesia since October 1993 and made partial refusals on a further three applications.
As for UK-supplied water cannons, the water cannon is an instrument of crowd control and is used for that purpose in many western countries. Water cannons provide an alternative to more lethal methods deployed in the past and we expect them to be used in accordance with international guidelines.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Indonesia is not only a friendly country but the fourth


most populous country in the world, that it is developing well as a future tiger economy and that its interests in our exports are in not only military and police equipment but a range of goods and services—not least the successful Health Action Asia delegation, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health led to Indonesia last year?

Mr. Hanley: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
On water cannon, we have raised with the Indonesians our concerns that UK-supplied crowd control equipment should not be used indiscriminately or to disperse peaceful demonstrations in violation of the universal human rights of freedom of speech, organisation and assembly. My hon. Friend is right to state that Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world, and it is an important country with which to do business. Isolating Indonesia would not help at all.

Sir David Steel: The Minister has just told us that the Government support the street demonstrations in Serbia. Is he aware that the street demonstrations in Indonesia have been suppressed by water cannon, as shown in photographs that I am sending him today? Will he study those photographs and change his mind about the further export of water cannon?

Mr. Hanley: No one would condone the excessive use of force, but in the face of violent rioting there is a legitimate requirement to protect life and property.

European Union (Frontier Controls)

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with his European counterparts about frontier controls within the European Union. [9237]

Mr. Rifkind: The intergovernmental conference has discussed possible developments of justice and home affairs on a number of occasions. We have made it clear that we will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in addition to the need to block entry to this country by drug dealers, terrorists and other undesirable elements, we need to control the migration from eastern Europe and beyond by people who are motivated by economic factors rather than genuinely seeking asylum? Will he assure the House that, during the IGC, he and his Home Office colleagues will continue to resist vigorously any pressure to sign up to the Schengen treaty, accession to which would hopelessly compromise our existing controls and would, I suggest, put the security of this country at risk?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give my hon. Friend that unqualified assurance. We have no intention of acceding to the Schengen controls. Our commitments under the single market relate to the free movement of EU citizens, and it is crucial for us to maintain controls as regards citizens from third countries. We have every intention of maintaining those controls in the years to come.

Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not agree to anything within the EU

that will ensure that the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain is treated any differently—apart from customs union matters—from the frontiers between Spain and Portugal and between Spain and France?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that this is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman may have seen press reports that suggest that the Spanish are considering restricting the use of Gibraltar passports, but we have made it clear that that would be totally unacceptable. The general response from the Spanish has been encouraging, and I expect a formal reply to our representations in the near future. We will study that reply carefully.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we will resist all the pressure from a number of our more federally minded European partners to make all borders come down and to have one immigration policy? Does he think that it is a mockery for a political party that espouses being tough on borders and tough on immigration policy then to agree quietly to get rid of all our immigration policies by having a pan-European one, as is happening with the Labour party?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there is a particular problem for those who say that they do not believe in any permanent opt-outs. The United Kingdom has opted out of controls such as the Schengen policy. If one believes that opt-outs are purely temporary, it is simply a question of when one abandons frontier controls—not a question of the principle. So far as the Government are concerned, these frontier controls are permanent and will not be removed.

Council of Ministers Secretariat

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the current secretariat of the Council of Ministers and associated staff, engaged in political co-operation within the European Union, were in post in December; and what estimates he has made of the staff consequences arising from adopting recent proposals in respect of extending activity relating to political co-operation. [9238]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Two thousand, five hundred and twenty-nine staff were employed to the Council secretariat in 1996. The task of the secretariat is to help the presidency in administering and co-ordinating the work of the Council of Ministers in all its functions. The secretariat has informed us that 29 of these people work directly on common foreign and security policy. It is not yet possible to assess changes to the secretariat after the IGC is concluded.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the proposals from the Irish presidency for consideration at the revision of the treaty at Amsterdam include specific proposals for enhancing the profile of the Secretary-General in re foreign and security policy matters, increasing planning staff and giving the presidency powers of diplomatic representation, supported principally by the secretariat and the Commission, which would thereby and of their own account have increased diplomatic powers in third


countries? Would that not be the end of co-operation and the development of a pan-European Foreign Office in its own right?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has a point in terms of the intentions of some of our European Union colleagues. Perhaps it would be worth while if I explained briefly what our intentions were and what we have proposed, because there is great support within the Union for the British proposal.
The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's first question concerned the secretariat. Our proposal is to reinforce the planning cell, so that when there are differences of view between different parts of the Union it is because of a difference of interest—making it reasonable to exercise the veto and withhold consensus—rather than of analysis. Our proposal would add about five or six people to the current foreign service planning personnel.
On representation, we have made it very clear that so-called Monsieur or Madame Pesc should be entirely subordinate to the Council and therefore remain within the control of the nation states; as such, it will not undermine co-operation.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important aspect of political co-operation is that agreements once made should be rapidly implemented? Can he therefore tell us what steps the Government have taken to ratify the Europe-Israel trade agreement and what progress is being made among our partner countries to take the same action?

Mr. Davis: The trading provisions came into effect on 1 January last year, and are currently being taken forward.

Legislative Council

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take the Chinese Government's decision to abolish the Hong Kong Legislative Council to the International Court of Justice and the Security Council. [9240]

Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement on the provisional legislature that I issued on 20 December 1996, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House. I said that we would be willing to join China in submitting the question of a provisional legislature to independent legal settlement, for example to the International Court of Justice. The Chinese Government have not accepted that proposal.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for a serious, if belated, answer to a serious question. Does he agree that the Chinese decision to abolish the Legislative Council is contradictory and damaging to the joint declaration and to democracy in Hong Kong? That decision derails the through train of democracy, allows the Chinese to impose their own terms on franchises and qualifications for standing and bodes ill for an easy transition. Will he raise the matter in every available forum of world opinion and say that, if the Chinese do not agree, as he said in his November statement, to put it to the international court, they must have something to hide, and that is unacceptable?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The requirements of the joint declaration and the Basic Law

envisage an elected Legislative Council, and I do not believe that it can be seriously proposed that a hand-picked electorate of 400—the body that chose the provisional legislature—in any way meets those requirements. We have made our views clear, and the Democratic party in Hong Kong has welcomed the British Government's response to the Chinese action. Good statements have been made by the United States and several other countries, and the Chinese can be in no doubt about the serious view of their action taken not only by the United Kingdom but by the international community.

Human Rights (Commonwealth)

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure maximum compliance with human rights in other Commonwealth countries. [9241]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We support fully the Harare declaration and the Millbrook action plan.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Government be resolute and strong at the forthcoming 52nd United Nations Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva in a few weeks to secure a clear resolution about reinstating human rights in Nigeria, and do they consider the Amnesty 10-point programme an acceptable basis for bringing Nigeria back into line in the family of civilised nations in the Commonwealth?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The Government are doing everything they can to bring Nigeria back into line. The conduct of the Nigerian Government is currently wholly unacceptable. The United Nations forum, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is one of the ways in which we shall seek to bring them back into line.
We also fully support the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which recently visited Nigeria and which has made four specific proposals. It recommended the prompt restoration of accountable civilian government, the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola, the rapid resolution of the case of the 19 Ogonis, who face the same charges as Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates faced, and a review of prison conditions. Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can to ensure that those conditions are fulfilled.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that human rights are best guaranteed by the election of democratic Governments, not only in the Commonwealth but elsewhere in the world, particularly in the middle east? Does he agree that, if there were democratic Governments in the middle east—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister make it clear to the Government of Jamaica that there is widespread revulsion in the House—as shown by large numbers of signatures on early-day motions—at the continual suppression of human rights in Jamaica by the violation of the rulings of


the judicial committee of the Privy Council that prisoners should not be held on death row for more than five years? That is evidenced by the harsh and brutal treatment of prisoners, the inhuman conditions in which they are kept and the denial to them of access to medical attention. Is it not hypocritical of the Jamaican Government to sign British Commonwealth declarations about human rights everywhere else, but to suppress human rights in Jamaica?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that conditions in Jamaican prisons are unacceptable. No prisoner, either in Jamaica or elsewhere, should be kept on death row any longer than is absolutely necessary. All judicial processes to review a sentence of death should happen speedily. We shall continue to press the Jamaican Government on those matters.

Intergovernmental Conference

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the intergovernmental conference. [9242]

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the intergovernmental conference. [9247]

Mr. David Davis: Negotiations in the intergovernmental conference will continue under the Dutch presidency on the basis of the draft revision of the treaties submitted by the Irish presidency. The Dublin European Council reaffirmed the target of completing the IGC at the Amsterdam European Council.

Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that the antics of the so-called Euro-sceptics and their friends in the Murdoch and Black press strengthen or weaken his hand in the negotiations at the IGC?

Mr. Davis: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] That question was clearly drafted by my officials!
My attitude towards negotiations in the European Union starts and finishes with the interests of our country, and nothing else.

Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that, last month, the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee praising the European Commission's efforts to combat fraud in the European budget? Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the European Commission's efforts to ensure that the single market works effectively in all countries?

Mr. Davis: This country has been at the forefront of the battle against fraud, and of the battle to make the single market work.

Mr. Churchill: When the Gadarene swine are in full cry, is it appropriate to adopt a wait-and-see policy? Is it not about time we jettisoned that policy and campaigned against a single European currency, which is against the interests of the United Kingdom and against the interests of the European Union as a whole? Is it not significant

that the country that claims to be most in favour of a single currency—at least in political terms—is Germany, although popular opinion there is overwhelmingly opposed to Chancellor Kohl's view?

Mr. Davis: I will resist the temptation to tell my hon. Friend to wait and see. Irrespective of whether we are in the first round, the single European currency matters enormously to Britain. The way in which it is designed and set up matters enormously because our markets are, to a large extent, in the European Union. That is why the Government's policy is the policy that is best for this country.

Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Minister explain why, during the recess, the major statement on the intergovernmental conference was made by the Health Secretary? Did he hear the Foreign Secretary tell the "Today" programme that he rang up the Health Secretary because he wanted to be certain about what his views were? Does not he find it rather odd that the Foreign Secretary should be obliged to ring around the Cabinet to find out the latest views on Europe? Does he really think that Britain can provide a lead in Europe when every statement from Cabinet Ministers is not about serving the national interest but about serving their interests in the Tory leadership race that they expect to start very soon?

Mr. Davis: On the division of labour among Front-Bench spokesmen on European policy, I hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman has a monopoly of criticism. It was his leader, not the right hon. Gentleman, who leapt to re-present Labour's policy when we made it clear at Dublin that if there were a Labour victory at the next general election, on 1 May, there would be six surrenders in six weeks. That is what this country must defend itself against and our Health Secretary believes just as much as I do that it must be resisted.

Sir Roger Moate: As my hon. Friend clearly agrees with the Health Secretary's call for a renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union, is it not equally logical that, just as the original negotiations were put to the people in a referendum, the results of those renegotiations should be put to the people in a referendum?

Mr. Davis: Another helpful question. The IGC will, almost by definition, be a renegotiation. The British Government will present to the IGC a vision of a decentralised, deregulated and competitive Europe that is in the interests of this country and its people. The people of this country will recognise that at the next general election.

Burma

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support democratic forces in Burma. [9244]

Mr. Hanley: We continue to take action, nationally and with our European Union partners, to put pressure on the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council to implement democratic reform and full respect for human rights in Burma.

Mrs. Fyfe: In view of Aung San Suu Kyi's statement at Christmas that repression in Burma is getting worse,


will the Minister say whether there are any European Union proposals to impose sanctions? Is there any truth in the rumour that the United Kingdom and France are seeking to delay sanctions? If there is, how much worse does the situation in Burma have to become before he agrees to impose sanctions?

Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom has set out its policy to Parliament on many occasions. Our priority is to support democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma through the policy of critical dialogue. We believe that that will achieve more than total sanctions. We have recently adopted a European Union common position on Burma, which has imposed a ban on entry visas for senior members of the ruling council and for senior military and security force officials, as well as a ban on high-level bilateral visits to Burma. Combined with our suspension of non-humanitarian official aid, that means that we are doing a great deal to try to help persuade the ruling junta that it should accept democratic principles. We continue to raise our concerns bilaterally through our ambassador, Robert Gordon, in Rangoon. I summoned the Burmese ambassador only last month to urge dialogue with pro-democracy groups.

Sir Cranley Onslow: The House will be glad to have heard what my hon. Friend said, but will he go further? Is it not time that we discouraged British tourists from going to Burma and supporting that regime?

Mr. Hanley: The European common position does not ban tourism. We have no plans to discourage, or encourage, tourism to Burma. If our citizens were to find travel there dangerous, our policy might change but, at present, we believe that it is up to individuals to decide. We take great pains to try to inform individuals not only of the risks involved were they to go to Burma but of the nature of the regime that they would encounter.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome what the Government have been doing, but does not the Minister think that more should be done to side with people who stayed with us in the fight against Nazism in the last war and to support the Karen people?

Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree about support for the Karen people, who have suffered something akin to genocide. We greatly deplore that and we have supplied considerable humanitarian aid in the border regions of Burma, and will continue to do so.

Ministerial Meetings (European Union)

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official meetings he attended in the European Union in 1996; and in how many meetings he discussed the expansion of the Community. [9245]

Mr. David Davis: Last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary attended nearly 30 official EU meetings, including eight General Affairs Councils and two European Councils. The enlargement of the EU was a frequent subject of discussion at nearly all of them.

Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the European Union we must concentrate on creating jobs and

opportunities for business in Europe so that we can use Europe's market potential to our advantage and that of all European peoples? Does he agree that the danger is that Europe, instead of trying to bring in other countries and expand, is trying to become a federalist super-state? The British view and the Government's view must prevail if we are to achieve the job opportunities in Europe that we want.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. Employment is the most important issue in Europe at the moment and the best model for improving employment in Europe is that of free trade, deregulation and low taxes—the British model.

Mr. Llew Smith: When discussing the possible expansion of the European Community, did the Minister bring to the attention of the countries involved article 107 of the Maastricht treaty, which makes it obvious that it is illegal for democratically elected and accountable Parliaments to try to influence the undemocratic and unelected central bank? As the unelected central bank will have so many powers over our economy, did the Minister say that if we were to accept the article, the vote and the democratically elected Parliaments would become increasingly irrelevant?

Mr. Davis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. One issue very much at the forefront of the concerns of some of the would-be accession countries such as the Czech Republic is the effect of monetary union. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic referred to monetary union as the most important event in Europe's history in the past 50 years.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Were the European Union to be expanded, would not the common agricultural policy and the system of structural funds become totally unviable? Given that proposition, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that those two issues will be at the top of the list of priorities in the forthcoming discussions?

Mr. Davis: Indeed I can. Reform of the CAP and of the structural funds is, if anything, more important than the intergovernmental conference in allowing the enlargement of Europe to the east and south. If those two measures are not reformed, it will place a critical—indeed, unbearable—burden on the taxpayers of Europe. Therefore, the two issues are very much at the top of our list of priorities.

Ms Quin: I congratulate the Minister on his new right honourable status.
How many of the meetings referred to in the question have dealt with quota hopping and the working time directive, which are apparently make-or-break issues for the Government at the IGC? Will the Minister list the countries that support the Government's line on each of those issues?

Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Lady for her gracious congratulations. Some people have said that PC is not a description normally applied to me.
One of the difficulties that we must face is that much of the movement in a negotiation takes place in the last few days. I do not expect other countries to volunteer


support for our position until the last few days—when they realise that they must do so to deliver a result. I take it from what the hon. Lady says that she is not suggesting that we give up the interests of British fisherman to get a result in Europe.

Foreign Language Services

Sir Jim Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the BBC World Service about reductions in foreign language services in the next financial year. [9246]

Mr. Hanley: No proposal for language service closures has been submitted or is under discussion with this Department.

Sir Jim Spicer: I thank my right hon. Friend for the increased grant to the World Service of the BBC this year and, incidentally, I thank him and my other right hon. Friends in the Foreign Office for the increased grant to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Does he understand that the BBC World Service holds a unique position and that we all take pride in its work? Will he give an undertaking that, in the years ahead when we still constitute the Government, we will increase that grant, year on year?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right—the BBC World Service is an important national asset and the Government have a strong record of support for the service. Real-terms funding has grown by 53 per cent. since 1978–79. In foreign language services, 43 languages excluding English are currently being used, compared with 39 language services in 1979 and 37 in 1989. Therefore, the 3.1 per cent. increase in cash terms over 1995–96 was a vote of confidence in the World Service. We also increased the money from the know-how fund and paid extra money towards the three relay stations. I believe that the World Service is now well suited for its needs and should be able to carry out its expansion within current financial plans.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister fully satisfied with some of the services in the far east? There has certainly been some curtailment in regions such as China—regions that we would greatly like to influence and with which we will have to trade in future. Should not there be an expansion in such areas so as to increase United Kingdom influence?

Mr. Hanley: As I have said on several occasions, we have expanded the service—indeed, the new transmission arrangements in Thailand will help to spread the service still further. I believe that the service is still growing. Obviously, it must look at each service according to the demand for that service and, therefore, we cannot guarantee that there will always be the same number of languages, but the recent pattern has been one of expansion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the service is well received in the far east and I was pleased recently to announce an extra service so that people in northern China could hear the service even better.

Ministerial Meetings

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet his counterparts from the United States of America and former dominions to discuss greater integration within the framework of the World Trade Organisation. [9248]

Mr. Rifkind: I am planning to meet my American and Australian counterparts soon to discuss a variety of issues.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the United States and the former dominions—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—not only share a common language and a common legal system, which makes business so much easier between them, but are going through a period of growth, in contrast with continental Europe, which is experiencing decline? Does he agree that the last thing that companies in my constituency, such as Fairmile Fencing, which exports to the United States of America, and people at work in my constituency want is, first, a trade war between the European Union and the United States and, secondly, a Labour Government who would surrender the four areas of veto that we currently have and create in the United Kingdom the levels of unemployment that are currently being suffered in Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: I am certainly clear in my mind that companies throughout the United Kingdom, including the one to which my hon. Friend referred, welcome the breakdown of economic trade barriers between north America and western Europe and are conscious of the fact that the United Kingdom leads Europe in reducing unemployment and providing job opportunities for its people.

Mr. MacShane: Is it not a fact that, at the world trade conference, Great Britain and the United States found themselves on opposite sides of an important fence? The United States wanted the World Trade Organisation to set up a working party on child labour and the British Government sided with authoritarian countries that said that child labour should not be discussed. May I invite the Foreign Secretary, in his last few weeks of office, to consider donning the mantle of William Wilberforce? As Wilberforce led a great campaign to outlaw slave labour in the last century, let Britain take a lead in campaigning against and outlawing child labour in the next century.

Mr. Rifkind: The British Government have a position that has been agreed with all our European partners; the United Kingdom does not stand alone on this issue. We deplore, as much as the hon. Gentleman does, the use of child labour. It has been pointed out that these are issues for which the International Labour Organisation exists, and should be raised with it. It is not sensible, in our judgment, or in the judgment of most other countries, to be tempted into dealing with these matters via the World Trade Organisation. That organisation has important responsibilities, as has the ILO. Those respective responsibilities should be recognised.

Middle East Peace Process

Sir Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the United Kingdom Government propose to take to promote the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [9250]

Mr. Rifkind: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier.

Sir Robert Hicks: Although I welcome the Hebron agreement, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would still be sensible to defer ratification of the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement between the European Union and Israel until all the objectives of the Oslo accords timetable have been met?

Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not agree. I believe that the Hebron agreement that has been reached shows the support of Israelis and Palestinians for taking forward the peace process. I can therefore see no justification for seeking to delay ratification of the EU-Israel agreement; I believe it should be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Faulds: Is not the lesson of the recent agreement between President Arafat and Mr. Netanyahu that even the most reactionary and racist forces in Israel are open, and do respond, to international pressures? Should not we in that case use those more frequently?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that Israel is a healthy, vibrant democracy. If the elections in Israel resulted in a Government who have proved more difficult with regard to the negotiations, that is a challenge for the middle east and the international community. But we should never disregard the fact that Israel's are an elected Government.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend put pressure on the Government of Syria to show some interest in peace in the middle east, and on the captors of Ron Arad to release him after eight years of captivity?

Mr. Rifkind: We have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend's points about Mr. Arad. I have raised that question on a number of visits and in our contacts with political leaders in the middle east. It is still not certain whether he is alive, but we shall continue to devote our efforts to assisting those who are trying to establish his fate; and, if he is still alive, to having him speedily released and returned to his family.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the demonstrations for democracy in Belgrade; and if he will make a statement. [9251]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We welcome the decisions yesterday by the electoral commissions in Belgrade and Nis to restore the opposition victories in the recent local elections, but we continue to urge President Milosevic to

implement fully and without delay the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe report on those elections.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware of the tradition of democratic and humanitarian opposition in Belgrade? The conflict that took place before the break-up of Yugoslavia was essentially a conflict in Belgrade in which Serb fought Serb, including the forces of Milosevic. What role is played in Serbia by people such as John Kennedy, prospective parliamentary candidate for Halesowen and Stourbridge, who, when I was in Belgrade in 1992, was as much disliked by the independent television service as was Milosevic himself?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: With regard to the serious part of that question, I am indeed aware of the long history of democratic opposition in former Yugoslavia, particularly in Serbia. I trust that such democracy will shortly be restored and that proper democratic election results will be honoured. There are optimistic signs of that, but we must remain extremely alert to any backsliding.
As for Mr. Kennedy, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman ask him.

Indonesia

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Indonesia with particular reference to East Timor. [9252]

Mr. Hanley: I refer the hon. Lady to my answer to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and add that we regularly discuss our concerns about East Timor with the Indonesian Government.

Mrs. Clwyd: Do not the Government realise that no Labour Member has any confidence in the Government's professed concern for human rights in Indonesia or East Timor? When the Minister talks about such things, it is nothing but meaningless platitudes, particularly in the light of the National Audit Office report on British aid to Indonesia and the police training programme, which was backed by the Government. Why was the Home Office so concerned about that programme's human rights implications that it pulled out and left it to the Foreign Office? Why was there no human rights component in that police training programme? Why did Colonel Hindarto, trained under the British aid programme, go on to commit human rights abuses, including torture, in Indonesia and East Timor?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady refers to the NAO report. I remember saying to her just a couple of months ago that I hoped that she would stand by it, as I would stand by it, and the Government do so. It must have disappointed her because it made it clear that the concerns about links between aid and arms sales were unfounded, that none of the projects examined included the procurement of military equipment, and that none of the contracts or memorandums of understanding was conditional on the purchase of British goods or services beyond those necessary for the project. Therefore, in referring to the report, the hon. Lady confirms merely that our policy has been above board.
Successive Governments have believed that training with Indonesian personnel has been good for development in Indonesia and for the appreciation of human rights, but of course not every course contains a human rights element. Training of military personnel and police has helped to improve that appreciation through better management. Academic training continues as well. In the past five years, under the Chevening award scheme for police training, three students have followed courses in police studies, business administration, banking and finance. That is perfectly sensible.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he does not respond to the blandishments of Labour Members about unilateral arms sales bans? He may know of the possible order for Westland, which will affect the jobs of constituents in Yeovil and most of Dorset. It is surprising to hear that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is urging the Government to ban such arms sales to a nation that is friendly with the UK.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. There is no European Union or United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia, nor would one be justified. All applications are tested by us personally. Every application is considered before it is approved. As I have mentioned, since 1993, we have refused at least 11 licences for Indonesia. Details are in the Library.

United Nations

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British Government policy towards the United Nations. [9253]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We remain wholeheartedly committed to the UN's purposes and principles.

Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister agree that the UN peacekeeping force in Angola, including the British contingent, has been vital in maintaining peace in Angola, in clearing land mines and in improving the security of the people who live there? Is he happy with the UN proposal to pull out of Angola in one month's time? What is he doing to ensure that a peacekeeping operation continues, thus ensuring the viability of peace in Angola?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that the UN's role in Angola has been significant. It is important that its work

is not lost, but the need for a continued presence is a matter for the UN members involved to discuss between themselves. I am not clear whether that presence will need to continue, or whether the job will be deemed to have been done.

Sir Jim Lester: What is the new Secretary-General likely to seek to achieve in terms of reorganisation? How quickly could we get countries that have not paid their dues and demands to pay them to the UN, so that it no longer operates with a shortage of money, which has been its biggest problem in the past five years?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me a chance to say two things. First, I welcome the opportunity of congratulating Kofi Annan on his appointment: in the view of Her Majesty's Government, he is an excellent choice for the job, and we are confident that he will succeed in carrying through the reforms of the United Nations that we seek.
As for the financing of the United Nations, I am much encouraged by the United States Administration's statement of their intention to pay the arrears that they undoubtedly owe. I must add a word of caution: that is subject to ratification by Congress. Nevertheless, it is certainly a move in the right direction.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister seems to be unaware that the United Nations peacekeeping force in Angola is to be removed simply because the money has run out. Is that not disgraceful? The removal of the force could return Angola to a state of civil war, just because of a lack of money. Will the Minister tell the House that he will get in touch with the United Nations, and ensure that the lack of money cannot be used as a reason for withdrawing a legitimate and workable peacekeeping operation?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is a marvellous feature of the Opposition that, although they always decry our colonial past, they are the first to try to persuade the Government that we can run the world single-handed. I am not in a position to tell the United Nations what it must do, but I will certainly do all that I can to ensure that the arrears owed to it are paid, and that it is reorganised so that it can become more efficient.

E. Coli (Pennington Report)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the interim report from Professor Pennington's expert group, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. The whole House will wish to thank Professor Pennington and his colleagues for the speed with which they have reported. Quite properly, they wish to reflect further on some of the issues before finalising their report by the end of February.
Professor Pennington was asked to examine the circumstances that led to the outbreak, and to advise me on the implications for food safety and general lessons to be learned. He has focused on four key areas: research, surveillance, enforcement and the handling of an outbreak. This outbreak has raised some fundamental questions about current food safety procedures in relation to the threat posed by E. coli 0157. E. coli 0157 should be seen in its proper context: it is much more virulent than most other causes of food poisoning, and requires a smaller infective dose than other organisms such as salmonella.
On research, Professor Pennington recommends work in two main areas—knowledge of the prevalence in livestock of the particular type of E. coli that caused the recent outbreak, and more accurate methods of typing E. coli strains using DNA fingerprinting. I have given instructions that that work should be done as a matter of urgency in consultation with the relevant research bodies, including the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. We have a wealth of clinical information from the treatment of about 1,000 patients during the outbreak. I therefore propose to commission an analysis of that information, which will help to develop our knowledge of the natural history of the infection and assist the management of outbreaks. I am asking Professor Pennington to consider that in his final report.
To back up research and help the understanding and control of food poisoning outbreaks, good surveillance, data collection and disease analysis are clearly essential. Although the report does not indicate that the current mechanisms caused any difficulties in the present outbreak, it suggests that more systematic arrangements in Scotland would be helpful.
The report therefore recommends that urgent consideration be given to introducing improvements to surveillance and that proposals be worked up to permit electronic reporting and analysis of data. I fully support those recommendations, and my Department is already taking action to make more systematic the way in which food poisoning data are reported from laboratories in Scotland. I will make resources available for the establishment of an electronic reporting system.
Professor Pennington makes several recommendations on enforcement. Existing arrangements on food hygiene are based on European Union directives, brought into force by regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990. The codes of practice under the Act were widely consulted upon and, of course, they were laid before the House.
Professor Pennington recommends urgent consideration of the legislation and action, through licensing, to ensure that equivalent standards of hygiene apply to premises

principally selling to the final consumer as to those premises subject to the Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations. He also recommends urgent action to ensure physical separation of raw and cooked meat products by using separate counters, refrigerated equipment and separate staff. Pending the outcome of consideration of the legislation, he recommends that the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food should be asked to review its guidance on cross-contamination. I have asked it to do so.
The recommendations have far-reaching implications. I have instructed my officials to examine the practical implications of the recommendations and, in doing so, to consult consumers, health professionals, environmental health officers, processors and retailers. It would be helpful to Professor Pennington to have more detailed information on the practical aspects. Therefore, with that in mind, I have asked the Meat and Livestock Commission—the Government's statutory advisers on the industry—to carry out an urgent study of the issues so that Professor Pennington can take them into account in his final report.
Professor Pennington made three recommendations on the codes of practice under the Food Safety Act 1990, all of which my colleagues and I accept. He recommends first a review of code of practice 16, which relates to the food hazard warning system. That system, operated by the Government, is to warn environmental health departments of possible or actual food hazards on the basis of information from other areas. Professor Pennington concludes that the difficulty for food authorities is setting the balance between dealing with routine matters at local level and advising central Government of emerging problems.
As code of practice 16 is currently written, the decision to notify central Government is a judgment made locally. Professor Pennington suggests that it may be better to define an "isolated incident" as one which is contained within the boundaries of the food authority. It should, however, be incumbent upon that authority to notify central Government the moment that it has evidence that food distribution is beyond the local authority boundary. It would also be essential to retain the "major local incident" provision so that central Government are informed immediately even if the problem is contained within the authority's area but involves a significant number of people, an organism such as E. coli 0157 or a problem such as botulism.
An allied recommendation is that the code should place greater emphasis on risk and assessment of all factors relevant to protection of the public. That key addition would cover such matters as the organism's virulence, the extent of the food's distribution, the consumer group's vulnerability and the confidence that could be attached to product recall. The revision would make it clear that careful assessment of the risk involved is fundamental to informing decisions.
Professor Pennington also recommends a review of code of practice 9, on food hygiene inspections, to ensure better targeting of resources on high-risk premises.
I accept all those recommendations. Good lines of communication from local to central Government and timely release by local outbreak control teams of information to the public are crucial, as the paramount consideration must always be the protection of public


health. Similarly, I agree that there should be careful targeting of resources on the high-risk premises. This guidance for enforcement officers will be reflected in the revised codes of practice which will go out to consultation shortly.
Professor Pennington makes observations on the potential for cross-contamination in slaughterhouses, focusing specifically on the slaughtering of cattle in a clean condition. My Department is pursuing this issue with the Meat Hygiene Service, which is well advanced in preparing practical guidance on the definition of acceptable standards of cleanliness in animals presented for slaughter.
Hazard analysis improves food safety by focusing on critical points in the preparation and handling of food. Professor Pennington therefore recommends that the implementation of these requirements be accelerated, particularly for high-risk premises which handle raw and cooked foods. I agree. My Department will urge environmental health departments to take early action on it, so that hazard analysis covers all high-risk premises in their area as soon as possible.
Finally, on enforcement, Professor Pennington recommends, in the longer term, a review of the health risk condition contained in the Food Safety Act 1990, which governs, among other matters, the actions taken by environmental health officers in emergencies. The key question is whether the present position unreasonably inhibits environmental health officers in, for example, taking decisions under the emergency prohibition provisions in section 12 of the Act to close premises merely on suspicion of connection with an outbreak. I have asked my officials to examine the practical operation of the emergency powers available to EHOs as a matter of urgency and in doing so to consult consumers, health professionals, environmental health officers, processors and retailers.
On handling an outbreak, Professor Pennington recommends that every health board and local authority should make sure that they have in place joint plans, as required by the existing Scottish Office guidance, setting out mechanisms and procedures for dealing with them when they occur.
Professor Pennington also emphasises the importance of having one person leading the team, which should be able to act and take decisions as it sees fit. I agree on the importance of clear leadership and with Professor Pennington's expectation that this would most likely come from the health board. I also agree that the local authorities and the health boards must delegate to the team maximum powers to take the necessary action.
I propose to invite health boards and local authorities in Scotland to review their procedures and let me have their response to Professor Pennington's interim recommendations by the time he produces his final report.
Professor Pennington also suggests that the Scottish Office should review the present guidelines on the investigation and control of outbreaks and endorses the creation of a Scottish Office team under the chief medical officer as was done for this outbreak. I agree.
This has been an extremely serious and tragic outbreak, one of the worst of its sort in the world. I am grateful to Professor Pennington and his colleagues for producing

their interim report so quickly. I have set out today the Government's response to the interim recommendations. This is a matter to which the Government will attach the utmost priority in the coming months.

Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement and pay tribute to Professor Pennington and his expert team for the speed with which they have prepared the report for us. Given that it is, however, an interim report, we shall look forward to reading the full one in the next couple of months and to seeing the considered conclusions on what is, by any standards, a very grave issue.
Let me say at the outset that I welcome many of Professor Pennington's recommendations, in particular those on licensing procedures, emergency planning and the aspects of food regulations that he considered. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted so many of those recommendations.
We of course welcome the extra money promised for research, but will the Secretary of State confirm that Professor Pennington asked the Government for research funding as far back as last November but was denied it? Why is it only now, after 16 people have died and more than 400 have been affected by this most horrifying of illnesses, that the funds are being made available and the research is being belatedly done? Is it not a classic example of the way in which the Government have treated every food crisis that they have faced—ignoring medical advice, reacting to events rather than shaping them, and always too little, too late?
On a specific but central issue, will the review of the food safety guidelines examine our concerns that the present guidelines, particularly on the publishing of information on outlets that might be affected, are skewed towards the commercial interest at the expense of that of the consumer? Professor Pennington's report—the public will appreciate that we have had only a few minutes to consider it—says clearly in paragraph 4.2.13:
There is a risk that in certain circumstances the existing guidance might restrict the dissemination of information to the public.
It goes on to say:
It is clear that any advice in the Code should indicate that where Risk Assessment suggests a risk to public health exists then disclosure of information is relevant.
He clearly implies that the current guidelines are restricting information to the public. Will that lead to an immediate review of the guidelines? Will those commercially biased guidelines, which led to consumers still buying contaminated foodstuffs long after the outbreak had been detected, stay in place in the interim? That would be intolerable, given what we know and what Professor Pennington has said.
Does the Secretary of State accept that Professor Pennington's inquiry cannot address the role of the Scottish Office and, more importantly for avoiding a repetition of such an emergency, the role of Scottish Office Ministers in the handling of this tragedy? The public expect those issues to be dealt with by the fatal accident inquiry, but does the Secretary of State accept that that public inquiry is unlikely to begin its work for some months—not until after the general election? That delay does not mean that Ministers should not give us a full and frank account now of their role in this affair.
Above all, will the Secretary of State answer the central question, to which he has signally failed to give a credible answer so far: what advice, if any, did his Minister responsible for health—the Minister of State, Scottish Office—give on the publication of the list of outlets? To be fair, the Secretary of State told the House in his first statement on the issue that, once he became aware of the problem with the list of outlets, his advice was to publish it. However, by then the decision to publish had already been taken by Lanarkshire health board. Given that the Minister responsible for health must have been aware of that list and the controversy surrounding it long before then, what was his advice to the local authorities? Why were the public of North Lanarkshire and central Scotland kept in the dark for so long? By the first weekend, the bacteria had spread beyond North Lanarkshire and Forth Valley health board had been involved. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Scottish Office did not instruct the local agencies to issue the information to the public? Is not it true that his Department's official, with the support of the acquiescence of the Scottish Office Minister responsible for health, told local agencies that the guidelines prohibited publication?
Let me say, in all seriousness, that the reason why we continue to ask questions has nothing to do with partisan advantage; it is that Ministers keep dodging our questions and refusing to answer them. Is it not time that the Secretary of State finally stopped passing the buck and gave us a full and frank account of his Minister's role in the crisis and gave the public the answers that they deserve?
Finally, is not the more general lesson to be learnt from this whole tragedy that in matters of food safety the interests of the consumer must always take precedence over profit? Why will Ministers not establish the food standards agency that we and so many others have proposed to ensure that food safety has the priority that the public expect?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks and his thanks to Professor Pennington. I also thank him for his welcome for the interim recommendations in that report and the Government's response to them.
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest possible way that this really is not the territory for party political point scoring.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Of course it is.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course it is." The report deals with a complex and difficult situation in which a number of people have died. It raises complicated issues of food safety and regulation and it is important that it is examined carefully.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points in respect of research funding. He asked me whether the Scottish Office had refused to fund the proposals that we have said today that we will support. We did not. However, Professor Pennington was asked to reformulate one proposal that he put to the Scottish Office. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we do not fund research simply because of the nature of the subject—E. coli 0157. The nature of the research and what it intends to achieve has to be considered and the Government act on the basis

of expert advice. As I have repeatedly told the House, we are spending more than £2 million on research into these matters. As I have told the House, the specific research that has been recommended by Professor Pennington will be carried out.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the research is simply reacting to events is correct in so far as it arises from recent experience and will help us, but he was incorrect to suggest that we have not been prepared to support research that is soundly based and has been commended to the Government by their advisers.
In regard to publishing information, the hon. Gentleman described the code of practice as being "skewed towards the commercial interest". The code of practice was laid before the House. The Food Safety Act 1990 was subject to considerable debate and there was a consensus across the Floor of the House about the value of that regulation. I do not believe that hon. Members would not have objected to a code of practice that was "skewed towards the commercial interest".
I gave the hon. Gentleman advance notice of the report in which Professor Pennington deals with that point and demonstrates that it is possible to interpret the guidance in respect of publication in a way that might result in people not making information available because of concern about damaging commercial interests.
North Lanarkshire local authority decided not to publish information on the basis of the code of practice, but Forth Valley health board and Falkirk local authority decided to publish the information on the basis of the same code of practice. So there is an issue of interpretation. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether that would be addressed. As I said in my statement, we shall accept Professor Pennington's recommendations in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman said that the report could not address the role of the Scottish Office. It does so. Just for the sake of clarity, in respect of the conduct of the Scottish Office and the local authority, Professor Pennington concludes that overall the procedures worked well. The outbreak was a major one, concerning a particularly virulent organism, and there are of course lessons to be learned. Professor Pennington commends the procedure that was established under the chief medical officer in the Scottish Office for dealing with the outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman says that the fatal accident inquiry will not be available for some months. He knows that that is because there are criminal proceedings and the matter is sub judice, which makes it even more difficult for me to go into some of the detail on which he seeks to press me. The fatal accident inquiry cannot take place until such time as the criminal proceedings have been followed, and he knows that.
The hon. Gentleman criticised us for having a fatal accident inquiry as the form of public inquiry. Given that there are criminal proceedings, we will be able to proceed with a public inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 more rapidly than we would have been able to had we adopted the hon. Gentleman's preferred solution, which was a public inquiry as a stand-alone procedure, as was conducted after the Dunblane tragedy.
The hon. Gentleman really must stop seeking to score points against my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have set out what happened on two occasions. If he


wishes me to spell it out again, the answer to his question why the publication of the list of outlets was delayed is that the decision was taken by North Lanarkshire council, which is controlled by his party. He should be in a position to ask his party leaders why that decision was taken. I imagine that they would give him the same answer as I have given: the officials of that council, like my right hon. Friend and my officials, acted quite properly and in the public interest. They deserve better support from the hon. Gentleman than he is giving them.

Sir Hector Monro: We all welcome Professor Pennington's report, but may I suggest that my right hon. Friend awaits the outcome of the fatal accident inquiry and the publication of the full report before he embarks on legislation later this year? It seems that the report's great emphasis is on the fact that there should have been early co-operation and co-ordination between the local council and the local health board when the scare, which latterly turned out to be a disaster, occurred. Should he not immediately introduce guidelines so that such failure does not happen again?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is essential that we get this right. I received Professor Pennington's report on new year's eve and read it on new year's day. We had a meeting of officials on 3 January. The Cabinet sub-committee established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the following week and we have acted speedily. Professor Pennington says that his recommendations are interim and that they may change, but I am sure that it is right for us to get on with consultation.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and his colleagues criticised me for establishing Professor Pennington's expert group on the basis that it would not be independent. It does not fall foul of sub judice provisions and enables us to take immediate action in respect of wider issues. I hope that all hon. Members and people outside the House will use this opportunity to contribute to ensure that we get the best regime of regulation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that it should be based on partnership. I commend the material that has been submitted by the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), which I have passed to Professor Pennington. It is exactly the kind of constructive contribution to this debate that we would like.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: As the families of too many of my constituents have discovered, dying from E. coli is a horrible way to die. In view of the long delays that people in my constituency will face due to the trial and the fatal accident inquiry, will the Secretary of State issue forthwith for rapid consultation the changes that are needed in the codes of practice on the closing of shops and the publication of information? The present misleading, misguided codes are prejudicing action in Lanarkshire, and no doubt elsewhere.

Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has helped my office and kept it informed. It has obviously

been extremely difficult for him as the hon. Member who has been affected by this dreadful outbreak. As I said in my statement, we will consult immediately on the recommendations in Professor Pennington's report on those codes of practice. It is important that we get them right, but I do not believe that there is an environmental health officer in the country who is not following this statement carefully. I have taken steps today to ensure that they are all aware of the statement in the House and that they all receive copies of Professor Pennington's report so that they can act on the basis of that experience and advice in order to avoid the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public will be greatly reassured by the comprehensive nature of the interim report by Professor Pennington and his colleagues and by the Government's positive reaction to it? On a specific point about surveillance, my right hon. Friend talked about an electronic reporting system. How long does he expect it will be before that is set up? Can he tell the House generally how he anticipates that the final report and the Government's response to it will be handled in the House?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. On surveillance, I expect the electronic reporting system to cost about £250,000. I do not know how long it will take to put it in place, but we want to see that happen as speedily as is practicable. Obviously, we have had these recommendations and I have accepted them and we now need to ensure that the necessary work is put in hand to carry them out. I do not wish to tie Professor Pennington down to a time scale, but I expect to receive his report by the end of February. I expect that hon. Members will want to study it carefully. It will have wide-ranging implications for not just Scotland but the whole of the United Kingdom. It is for hon. Members to indicate the way in which they would like us to proceed. Whether there should be a statement or a debate is a matter best assessed at the time. Obviously it will require serious consideration by the House.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in making the recommendations for further research, including research to help gauge the prevalence of and forecast future outbreaks of E. coli 0157, Professor Pennington found that the strain in the present outbreak belonged to the same sub-clone as that which caused the West Lothian outbreak—due to the contamination of the pasteurised milk supply—and the Grampian cluster of cases in 1994? Given that the West Lothian outbreak was the largest of its type in the world, will the Secretary of State accept that this was not just research generally into E. coli 0157? Is there any overlap or similarity between the research that Professor Pennington is recommending in this report and the research that was requested by Professor Pennington and his team at an earlier stage and which was batted back to him?

Mr. Forsyth: I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail about this. I can tell him, for example, that one of the projects rejected was in respect of a piece of equipment. Another piece of research that is recommended—I am not familiar with the detail—is


specifically related to this outbreak. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of the milk case in Lothian and the connection there. In making his recommendations, Professor Pennington took account of the experience of that outbreak.

Mr. Phil Gallie: This has been a terrible episode in Scotland's history, albeit a short-term one. I commend my right hon. Friend and Professor Pennington on the production of the report, but I am slightly concerned about the comments made on enforcement. Butcher businesses across the country are often small, family businesses and they have a very good record. I noted the comments on enforcement and I would hate to think that we would rush into making legislative changes to licensing without tremendous consideration. I ask my right hon. Friend to take that point on board.

Mr. Forsyth: I made a point of talking to the Meat and Livestock Commission yesterday about Professor Pennington's recommendations. Throughout the industry, it is understood that it is in the interests of the industry as well as the consumer to have the highest standards and to put the protection of public health first. Equally, it is in the interests of protecting public health for regulation to be sensible, enforceable and practicable. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to give proper consideration to the issue, but we must ensure that we have practical and effective steps in place to enable, for example, the separation of raw and cooked meat. I know that that view is shared by butchers, producers and everyone else in the industry. We simply cannot afford to have virulent organisms transmitted with the tragic results that we have seen in Lanarkshire.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I welcome Professor Pennington's suggestion that in future any outbreak is managed by one person and that that person should come from the health board. I suggest that we look no further than the director of public health and that would take us some way towards reintroducing the medical officer of health. Does the Minister agree that had such a system been in place we might not have had the delay in the publication of the outlets, which was one of the major problems in the management of the outbreak?

Mr. Forsyth: I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about the judgments that were made in this case. The officials were acting in difficult circumstances and the speed with which the organism was transmitted and the numbers of cases multiplied was considerable. All the evidence I have seen persuades me that everybody involved acted in good faith. The hon. Gentleman put forward a proposal to bring back the medical officer of health role in the context of the post-1974 reorganisation. He and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) have set out that proposal in a well-argued short paper which I have passed to Professor Pennington with a request that he consider it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one person should be in charge. Professor Pennington says that that person should probably be the health professional. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that the one person should always be the health professional, but that is a matter for Professor Pennington to reflect on further. There are circumstances—for example, particular types of

outbreak—in which having one person in charge may not be appropriate. Some argue that the position should be left flexible and open, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's representations will play an important part before we reach a conclusion on that issue by the end of February.

Dr. John Reid: May I take this opportunity to thank everyone who was involved in responding to the epidemic, including all the officials and especially the health workers who acted so magnificently? I welcome Professor Pennington's report and the comprehensive way in which he has addressed the issues. May I especially welcome his comments on the reappraisal and review of section 16 of the code of conduct, of the guidelines and of the emergency powers of prohibition in the hands of environmental health officers? All the existing codes of conduct, guidelines and powers enshrine the dilemma, which has to be worked out by officials, between protecting the public interest and protecting commercial interests.
Does the Secretary of State accept that although Parliament never intended that commercial interests should predominate when the matters are weighed in the balance, our experience of E. coli, BSE and other epidemics shows that when officials have to make a decision, commercial interests can on occasion predominate over public health? Will he give an assurance that if the review illustrates that that can happen, and to make sure that public health is always "paramount"—the word he used—consideration will be given to separating the public health issue through an independent food standards agency?

Mr. Forsyth: I agreed with a large part of what the hon. Gentleman said until he got to the last bit, as there was a break in his logic. At the end of the day, an environmental health officer has to make a judgment and guidance is given as to how that judgment can be made. It is difficult to make that judgment, as it depends on the circumstances—none of us here knows all the circumstances in this case—and it may or may not be the judgment that other people with the same facts might make. I do not see how the existence of a food agency will affect whether or not people make the right or wrong judgment in particular circumstances.
Although Professor Pennington's report suggests that we should look at the wording of the code of practice—a matter underlined by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—I do not see that it is possible to argue that the wording resulted in a particular judgment being made that reflected commercial interest. In Falkirk, a judgment was made to publish the information, but that judgment was not made in the case of North Lanarkshire. It is certainly true that there is scope for clarifying the wording, and that is what Professor Pennington has recommended. I will be consulting on that, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that recommendation and the Government's response. But it is wrong for people not to recognise how difficult these situations are, and it is wrong to believe that it is possible to write a set of rules that will guarantee that a particular course of action is taken on every occasion.

Mr. John Garrett: Why have the Government recently cut £2 million from the budget of the Food Research Institute in Norwich, when that


institute was a pioneer in studying the causes and effects of E. coli infection? In retrospect, was that not a mistaken judgment?

Mr. Forsyth: I do not answer as the Minister responsible from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who would have taken that decision. I must put my hands up and say that when the Tony laboratory in Aberdeen was threatened with closure, I was among those who argued for the retention of research into not just E. coli but other food-related issues in Scotland. It may be that what happened in England had something to do with the reversal of the previous decision that was taken early last year, whereby we decided, as a result of proposals put forward by scientists in the north-east, to retain more of the research in Scotland. I am sure that I have the support of Opposition Members who represent Scottish constituencies in that respect.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Bearing in mind the fact that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that public health should always takes precedence over private commercial considerations, is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that neither he nor any of his Ministers had any responsibility whatever for the delay in notifying the general public about the infected food outlets, including the outlets in my constituency? That delay led to the deaths of several people. How on earth can there be full confidence in Professor Pennington's inquiry when the inquiry team includes one of the Secretary of State's senior officials who was closely involved in handling the matter under investigation?

Mr. Forsyth: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. That is precisely what I am telling him. His attack on the integrity of the Pennington group is unworthy. The group includes the chief medical officer and other professionals, and several people from outside who would not in any way be associated with any report or investigation that did not examine the facts and issue an objective and professional response. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will think that his question was unwise, to say the least.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I acknowledge that the Scottish Office and the Pennington committee followed up the plea that I made in Hamilton that they should consider the experience of the alleged—I choose that word carefully—Redhouse dairy outbreak in West Lothian and that they saw Mr. Alec Campbell and Mr. Crawford Morgan, representing the council, who had experience of that agonising affair? Any outbreak of E. coli is an agony.
Will the Secretary of State reflect on what several West Lothian councillors and officials have said: that they would have acted much more quickly and would have been able to do more had they not been inhibited by the actions and demands of the insurance companies? The insurance companies' wishes were an extremely serious matter, because the damages could have been enormous. In the course of the further inquiries, could the role and the requirements of the insurance companies be examined?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That aspect has not been considered by Professor

Pennington, although he certainly took account of the experience with the West Lothian outbreak in making his interim recommendations. The new point with respect to the insurers is one on which I would welcome further information, and I shall certainly ensure that it is investigated.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said earlier that he accepted that I had been informed about the matter on the Wednesday, when the information had not been made public, and that I had said that it should be. The publication of information that may or may not be right and that may cause damage to businesses is certainly a consideration, but my view at the time was that the public health interest must be paramount. It is, of course, easier for a Secretary of State to say that and to take responsibility than for officials operating where there are difficult judgments to be made.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will acknowledge, the provision in the code is often interpreted as meaning that the information has to be accurate because it might damage businesses; but it has to be accurate also because, if made public, it might have an important effect on public health. For example, if the wrong set of batch numbers were given to the public for tins of food infected by botulism, the result would be catastrophic. Professor Pennington points to the essential question of interpretation.
Hon. Members saw the code, it was consulted on, and everyone accepted it. Now that we have had the experience both in Lanarkshire and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we must learn the lessons and make a change. That is precisely what we intend to do.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can the results of all that careful work be made available to seek to protect the health of people in England and Wales as well? In that connection, has my right hon. Friend had, or does he intend to have, discussions with English and Welsh Ministers?

Mr. Forsyth: I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health. They have worked speedily in the ad hoc group that was set up, involving other Ministers, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to ensure that we have a United Kingdom response to and awareness of the experience in Scotland. Work is already under way on a number of initiatives that will inform the actions of my right hon. Friends as we proceed and receive a response from the consumer and health interests that will want to take part in the discussions.

Mr. Alex Salmond: May I put it to the Secretary of State that the job of Opposition Members is to ask key questions in the House on matters of public concern? It is his job to try to answer them, and not to complain about being asked a question every time it touches on the performance of Ministers or officials.
I welcome Professor Pennington's report, as I welcomed his appointment. The wide-ranging nature of his recommendations show the gaps and weaknesses in the current system.
Concern has been expressed that a fatal accident inquiry will not necessarily examine the performance and policies of Ministers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, at some point during the fatal accident inquiry, he and his Ministers will face questions about when they had information and what action they took, and that they will do so even if they are no longer in office when it takes place?
It is clear from the Pennington report that Scotland has a particular problem with E. coli 0157. The problem existed well before the tragedy in Lanarkshire and Forth Valley—we had the outbreak in West Lothian and the cluster of cases in Grampian. In paragraph 2.2 of his report, Professor Pennington says:
No information about the prevalence/incidence of the sub-clone in Scottish cattle or other animals
is now available. Is not that statement a damning indictment, given the fact that the total funding of Scottish research into this particularly Scottish problem amounted to £500,000 during a six-year period?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the areas of research in which Professor Pennington recommends that work should be undertaken is exactly the area for which he and his Ministers turned down a research proposal some months ago which would have cost £40,000? Will he pledge that never again will lack of funds prevent Scottish scientists from addressing this public health problem, which, as the report says, has a particular Scottish dimension?

Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am happy to stand at the Dispatch Box and deal with criticisms of Ministers and Government policy. I am also happy, as a Minister, to attend any fatal accident inquiry, either before or after the election.
What the hon. Gentleman said about research into E. coli in Scotland is not correct. I do not know why he lays emphasis on the importance of my answering questions, if he will not listen to the answers and keeps asking me the same question. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman for the third time that, as he knows, research is commissioned, in the main, by other Departments and not by the Scottish Office. The Scottish Office is not in the lead: we are a united kingdom. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a £2 million research programme into E. coli, yet he persists in making this point.
It is true that there is a higher incidence of E. coli in cattle in Scotland, and we are anxious to discover why that should be.

Mr. Salmond: Now.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that when the chief executive of McDonald's came into my office the other day, I tried to press him to buy Scottish beef and to put Scottish beef in his hamburgers. One of the reasons that the chief executive of McDonald's gave for having difficulty in doing so was that he kept hearing the hon. Gentleman saying that Scotland has a higher incidence of E. coli 0157. The hon. Gentleman should know that the highest standards are applied in the beef industry and to the production of beef in Scotland.
We are prepared to move forward on research that we are told by experts is appropriate. We have commissioned further research as a result of Professor Pennington's

recommendations. The hon. Gentleman should start thinking about the wider public interest instead of making narrow, nationalist, partisan comments.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I intend to call hon. Members who are rising, but I ask for brisk questions and brisk answers, because time is moving on.

Mr. Norman Hogg: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in saying that there is a strong case for looking at how crises of this sort are managed by those in authority? I draw a parallel between what has happened in this case, which occurred in my local authority area, and what happened in Aberdeen 33 years ago, when Dr. Ian McQueen was visibly very much in charge of the situation. The management and direction of policy were never in doubt. Will the Secretary of State examine the Aberdeen experience, even though it was 33 years ago, because valuable lessons could be learned?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have already asked for information on that. As he said, the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and for Kirkcaldy have been pressing on that. I was brought up in the north-east and I remember the outbreak very well. With the passage of time, it may appear now to have been more easily handled than it did at the time. There were criticisms about pubs being closed and so on; there was some controversy. The hon. Gentleman's basic point that there should be one person in overall charge is powerful and is reflected in the existing guidance. Professor Pennington suggests that that person should, as a rule, be a health professional rather than an environmental health professional. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise such issues.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is always fair-minded. I do not know what will be the outcome of the fatal accident inquiry, but I think that the behaviour of some of the Scottish National party councillors in his constituency, and the way in which they have sought to carry out a witch hunt against officials performing their task, was disgraceful. There is nothing in the Pennington report about the conduct of officials; that is for another day, after the criminal proceedings. The last thing that we need is people attacking public officials to make party political points. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who takes an interest in this matter, will dissociate himself from such behaviour.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the Government's record on food safety appalling? The number of deaths from food poisoning has risen from 94 in 1990 to 203 in 1995. Have not outbreaks of E. coli poisoning increased fivefold since 1990, when the Food Safety Act was passed? This is not a Scottish problem. There was an E. coli outbreak in my constituency over Christmas. There were no deaths, thank goodness, but nine people were affected. The source of the infection was never found. Is not there a compelling case for a food standards agency separate from the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department and a parallel agency to deal with England and Wales? Is not such separation essential?

Mr. Forsyth: If there is a powerful case, I do not know what it is. Professor Pennington has not made such a


recommendation. It is for the hon. Gentleman to make that case. I do not understand how a quango would ease the conduct of investigations to identify the source of E. coli 0157. It is a very virulent organism, and as few as 10 can transmit the disease. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this is a United Kingdom problem; indeed, it is a worldwide problem. The tabloid press will call it a super-bug, which is a good way to describe its characteristics. It is easily transmissible and has damaging effects, especially on elderly people and children. It is not very new Labour of him to blame the Government for every problem. He is right that there are more and more cases of food poisoning, but I do not think that it is the Government's fault. He is right that the Food Safety Act was passed in 1990; it was welcomed by Government and Opposition Members. No political party has a monopoly on trying to achieve the highest standards of public health.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a broader note, if I heard the Secretary of State aright, he said that existing arrangements on food hygiene are based on European Union directives. Given the all-embracing power of European over domestic legislation, does he believe that those European directives are seriously flawed or that the Food Safety Act does not match their requirements? If there is a discrepancy between the European legislation and the domestic legislation, in the interests of the consumer should not the problem be addressed?

Mr. Forsyth: I certainly think that the announcements that I have made today and Professor Pennington's report make it clear that there is scope for amending the codes of practice and considering the regulations and the legislation in light of our experience of this outbreak. As a general principal I believe that the House should decide what is right for our country and take the necessary measures. If there are constraints in terms of European legislation, we need to remove them, not feel inhibited about doing what we believe is right for our country.

Mr. Adam Ingram: The Secretary of State informed the House that, in accordance with existing guidelines, joint plans between the health boards and the local authorities should have been in place to deal with such outbreaks. If we can infer from that statement that such joint plans are not in place, surely the Scottish Office has been remiss in ensuring that its own guidelines have been properly adhered to.

Mr. Forsyth: I did not make any implication at all. I simply sought to inform the House of the facts, which are that Professor Pennington's report includes the recommendation that arrangements should be made for the local health board and the local authority to act together, with someone in charge. I did not imply that that was not the position in Lanarkshire—that is a matter for

the fatal accident inquiry. I reported to the House that the Scottish Office guidelines require that to be done. I did not say that it was not being done; I merely reported what the professor had recommended and what the guidelines provided. I told the House that I would be asking all local authorities and health boards to let us know precisely what arrangements they had in place by the time Professor Pennington concluded his report. I would expect our professional local authorities and health boards in Scotland to be complying with the existing guidance and to take account of Professor Pennington's recommendations.

Mr. George Foulkes: Why does it take a tragedy of this magnitude to get any action out of the Government when official statistics show that there is an epidemic of food poisoning in Scotland? In 1970, 858 cases were notified, but in 1995 that figure was more than 9,000, and in 1996, it was more than 10,000. Is not the reality—the problem—that the Government's passion for deregulation, as articulated by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) earlier today, is entirely incompatible with proper health and safety?

Mr. Forsyth: No, it is not, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to read the paper produced by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, the introduction to which touches on some of the reasons why there are more cases of food poisoning.

Mr. Foulkes: Deregulation.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that it is deregulation. In part, the increase reflects people's lifestyle—the food they eat, how they eat it and the fact that they are eating out more often. It is a complex subject. The hon. Gentleman asserts that the increase is due to deregulation. I challenge him to give an example of deregulation in that area since 1990—there has been no food deregulation. I was the Minister responsible for health and safety—we got rid of 40 per cent. of the regulations. In so doing, and on the advice of the Health and Safety Executive, we enhanced safety in the workplace. People's behaviour, not regulations, results in better standards. Regulations based on goal setting as opposed to prescription are more likely to affect people's behaviour in a way that minimises risk and damage, whether through injury at the workplace or through infection.

Mr. Foulkes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he thinks he knows more than environmental health officers, the Health and Safety Executive and other professionals, I suppose no one in the House will be surprised that he holds that opinion of himself. The Government have received that advice and the hon. Gentleman would do well to take account of it.

Appeal Tribunals

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the increasing concern expressed in the House about the standard of answers to parliamentary questions. I realise that the answers are not your responsibility, but I know that you are concerned that correct procedures should be followed.
I refer to an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), in November last year. The Minister said:
The independent tribunal service has no plans to close any other venues."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 386.]
That means any venues other than the nine he had mentioned in the answer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) received a letter from the independent tribunal service saying that a meeting would be held in Chesterfield on 14 January to consult in connection with those future arrangements. What actually happened at that meeting was that the people there were informed that the tribunal service in the area was to be closed, which seems to run contrary to the provisions contained in the parliamentary answer on 4 November.
In these circumstances, should not the Minister come to the House to make a statement about the nature of his parliamentary answer? That would allow us to follow up some of the matters of substance connected with the closure of the tribunal, which will cause great problems in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends in the area.

Madam Speaker: I do not have the Hansard of November to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have not been informed that a Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter, but the hon. Gentleman could put down further questions. He could even seek an Adjournment debate on the matter, which would give him ample opportunity—at least 15 minutes—to air his views and to get an answer from the Minister.

Overseas Development Co-operation

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
This Bill has all-party support, and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who are here to support the Bill today.
There is a great deal in the work of the Overseas Development Administration and its officials in which we should take quiet pride. We should take similar pride in the work of voluntary development agencies such as Oxfam, both projects supported by the ODA and those supported by independent charitable giving. However, that does not mean that the £2,000 million a year that the House votes to the ODA is always well spent.
In its report on the Pergau dam, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs revealed not only that the millions of pounds of British aid committed to the project had been used to support the pursuit of a British arms contract with Malaysia, but that, in the words of the permanent secretary to the ODA, the aid had been spent in a way that was "an extremely bad buy" in development terms. In fact, it has been calculated that the Pergau dam will cost the Malaysian people £100 million more than alternative means of generating electricity.
The National Audit Office report on aid to Indonesia, which will be debated by the Public Accounts Committee next week, reveals ineffective use of British aid—for example, a £5 million investment in the Ombilin coal mine which showed a negative return—and inappropriate use of aid, such as two cases in which aid projects were supported by the Foreign Office in order to help to secure British arms exports.
The purpose of the Bill is simply to improve the quality of British aid both in terms of effectiveness, by targeting aid on poor people in poor countries, and in terms of appropriateness, by prohibiting the use of the aid budget, directly or indirectly, to promote the sale or supply of military equipment. The Bill will also set clear social, environmental and human rights standards that will have to be met by all British aid projects.
I do not in this speech want to dwell on the cut in the real value of the aid budget. The case for changing the priorities of the ODA is the same whether that budget grows or declines. But when it is declining in value, it is more important than ever to ensure that every penny of it is well spent.
This weekend in Bangladesh, the Prime Minister promised more aid for rural areas of that country. I welcome that statement. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in Asia, and it has suffered a cut over the past five years in United Kingdom bilateral aid—from £55 million to £47 million a year. But the question that this House must answer is: where will the extra money for rural development in Bangladesh come from? The Red Book which we considered in last night's debate on the Finance Bill makes it perfectly clear that it will not come from the Treasury. It would be wrong to take the money from development programmes in other countries that are as poor as Bangladesh. It must come from aid to high and middle-income countries.
In recent years, however, the reverse has been happening. Over the life of this Parliament, the proportion of the British aid budget going to poor countries has fallen from 80 to 69 per cent. British aid to India has been cut by 23 per cent., while aid to Indonesia, a country with an average income three times higher than that of India, has increased by 79 per cent.
Recently, the ODA published its latest volume of British aid statistics, which reveal some shocking anomalies in British aid spending over the past five years. St. Helena, a middle-income territory with a population of just 7,000, received £44 million in overseas aid—twice as much as the poorest Commonwealth country in Africa, Sierra Leone, which has a population of 4.5 million. The Cayman islands, the offshore banking capital of the Caribbean, with a higher gross domestic product per capita than the UK, received £7.67 per person in British aid, while Jamaica, the poorest Commonwealth Caribbean island, received £5.33 per person in aid over the past five years.
In the same period, India got 53p per person; Hungary, with a standard of living more like ours than like India's, received £2.65; and Singapore and Hong Kong, which both have a higher per capita GDP than the UK's, received more aid per person over the five years than Vietnam, the poorest country in Asia.
The Bill seeks to end aid to high-income countries; to phase out aid to middle-income countries, using the sort of graduation strategies recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in its report on the ODA's fundamental expenditure review; and to use the money instead to increase aid for sustainable development for poor people in poor countries.
This is entirely consistent with the ODA's published mission statement, which reads:
ODA's purpose is to improve the quality of life for poorer people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.
I accept that there are reasons of national self-interest that lead the Government to spend public money on other things, such as promoting trade with emerging economies, encouraging democracy in central and eastern Europe, and

fulfilling our historic obligations to British dependent territories. But those aims are not consistent with the ODA's mission statement, and they should be paid for from other sources—perhaps directly by the Foreign Office, in the same way as it funds the BBC World Service and the British Council. Or perhaps Parliament should vote the ODA a separate budget for these specific purposes.
My support for overseas aid for the world's poor is based partly on compassion and a belief that we should help human beings who are less fortunate than ourselves—a basic mark of civilisation—and partly on self-interest. A Bob Marley song uses the lyric:
A hungry man is an angry man"—
and an angry man is a dangerous man. If it addresses the causes of that anger, the ODA can make the world safer for people in developing countries and in Britain.
I am a realist. I realise that the Bill is extremely unlikely to reach the statute book this Parliament, but I want to start the debate now and to return to it in the next Parliament, after the general election.
I warmly welcome the concern for the world's poor shown by the Princess of Wales, and by the Princess Royal in her support for Save the Children, but the House cannot delegate the debate, or the responsibility for overseas development policy, to the royal family. We are responsible for public expenditure, for scrutinising Government policy and for providing the legislative framework for that Government policy. The Bill proposes good and necessary legislation, and I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Sir David Steel, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Dr. Joe Hendron and Miss Emma Nicholson.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION

Mr. Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February, and to be printed [Bill 70].

Orders of the Day — Crime (Sentences) Bill

As amended (in the standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 7

TESTING AND TREATMENT ORDER

'.The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall be amended in Schedule 1A by adding the following paragraph—

"7.(1) This paragraph applies where a court proposing to make a probation order or a combination order is satisfied—

(a) that the offender is using a Class A drug;
(b) that his use caused or contributed to the offence in respect of which the order is proposed to be made; and
(c) that his use is such as may be susceptible to treatment.

(2) The court shall not form such an opinion as is mentioned in sub—paragraph (1) above unless it has obtained a pre-sentence report and a drugs test.

(3) The probation order or combination order shall, subject to sub—paragraph (6) below, include a requirement that the offender shall submit to drug testing and drug abuse treatment by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualification or experience with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's drug use.

(4) The testing required by such an order and by sub—paragraph (2) above shall be by provision of a sample of urine for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has any drugs in his body.

(5) The treatment required by any such order shall be such one of the following kinds of treatment as may be specified in the order—

(a) treatment as a resident in such institution or place as may be specified in the order;
(b) treatment as a non-resident in or at such institution or place as may be so specified: or
(c) treatment by or under the direction of such person having the necessary qualifications or experience as may be so specified.

(6) A court shall not by virtue of this paragraph include in a probation or combination order a requirement that the offender shall submit to testing or treatment for his drug use unless it considers that such a requirement is appropriate in all the circumstances and it is satisfied that the arrangements have been made for the testing and treatment intended to be specified in the order.

(7) The court shall review the offender's progress four weeks after making the order, and thereafter at intervals of not more than four weeks and not more than four months.

(8) While the offender is under treatment as a resident in pursuance of a requirement of the probation or combination order, the probation officer responsible for his supervision shall carry out the supervision to such an extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order.

(9) Where the person by whom or under whose direction an offender is being treated for dependency is of the opinion that part of the treatment can be better or more conveniently given in or at an institution or place which—

(a) is not specified in the order; and
(b) is one in or at which the treatment of the offender will be given by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience.

he may make arrangements for him to be treated accordingly.

(10) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in subparagraph (9) above are made for the treatment of an offender—


(a) the person by whom the arrangements are made shall give notice in writing to the probation officer responsible for the supervision of the offender, specifying the institutions or place in or at which the treatment is to be carried out; and
(b) the treatment provided for by the arrangements shall be deemed to be treatment to which he is required to submit in pursuance of the probation or combination order.".'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed [13 January], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I remind the House that with this we are discussing new clause 13—Court to be aware of provision in custody for certain dependent offenders—
'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be dependent on drugs or alcohol an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.'.

Mr. Clive Soley: When this debate was adjourned on Monday, I was speaking about the need to consider the needs of people when we imprison them. I was critical of the Minister and of the Government for having no concept of the purpose of prison. I am pleased that the debate was adjourned, because today I was supported, in effect, by none other than the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who said this morning on the Radio Four "Today" programme that we needed to think more carefully about what we were doing with prisons. He said that prison was an expensive way of making bad people worse.
I am frequently impressed—or, if you like, amazed—by the way in which the Government go in for all sorts of tough language about crime. They say that they are going to lock people up, and the Home Secretary's favourite phrase is, "If they don't want to do the time, they shouldn't do the crime." The Government seem to believe that, if they come out with such politically correct statements and throw a lot of public money at the problem by building more and more prisons, somehow or other crime will go away. It does not, and cannot, work like that.
We are wasting a vast sum of public money on building prisons that will not deter crime. When the Government discover that they will appease neither the tabloids nor members of the public who seem to think that more and more prisons are the answer, capital punishment will be reintroduced, as has happened in the United States. That also does not work.
To give the Home Secretary credit, he has made it clear that he does not support the reintroduction of capital punishment—not least because, if a person is wrongfully convicted, we cannot undo the damage once that person has been executed—but the Government are still not thinking about the purpose of prison. We lock people up without any concept of treatment.
I was addressing new clause 13, which deals with drugs and alcohol. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and states that we need to be able to show courts what prisons or other penal institutions can offer people who are sentenced, so that the court will know. I gave a number of examples, citing in particular an alcoholic with whom I had worked many years ago as a probation officer, and the difficulty even then of securing appropriate treatment programmes in prison. There were some, but not enough. As I said on Monday, there were many more facilities for such people outside prison.
Sadly, a large number of those facilities have now gone. As the Minister conceded on Monday, the Government must now recognise that, if we acknowledge that the majority of those committed to prison have a history of alcohol or drug abuse—that does not necessarily mean that they are addicted to drugs or alcohol; it merely means that alcohol or drug abuse plays a part in the commission of their offences—it is surely time that we thought about the problem in a rather more sophisticated way, and took the action towards which we were moving in the 1970s.
We should try to assess every prisoner on the basis of his needs, so that we can produce a treatment programme for prisoners that at least attempts to make some use of their time in prison. At present, we are still locking people up without any real concept of what we are doing, other than keeping them off the streets for a time.
We are tending to institutionalise people, so that the only thing they learn in prison is how to live in an institution. It should be no surprise to us that, when people are fully institutionalised, they cannot survive outside for long: they commit other offences, and return to prison—or, in many cases, to hospitals of one kind or another, including psychiatric hospitals. We know that from years of research in this and other countries.
Could the Minister not see his way to asking each prison to produce for the courts that refer to them the treatment facilities that they can offer prisoners, especially those with a history of drink or drug problems? I stress that I am not just talking about the full-blown alcoholic; I am talking about the sort of person who appears all too often in prisons and in court, who, in response to fairly peremptory questioning, will say that, before he committed the offence, he had a few pints with his mates. That is a common picture—the fairly low-level offender who offends quite frequently after going out drinking late at night and then wandering the streets. His offence may be car theft, criminal damage or burglary, but he will end up in prison.
We know that that is a problem, and we know that such people are more at risk when they have been drinking. That does not necessarily mean that they will not offend when they have not been drinking, but they are much more likely to do so when they have. If we could do something to help them to cope with the problem, we might make more progress.
The Government have, after all, conceded that anger management programmes and the like are useful in prison, although there is a limit to what such programmes can achieve. Surely, if we acknowledge the usefulness of those programmes, we should acknowledge the usefulness of treating alcohol and drug abuse, which has a much

longer history. If we accept—as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept—that there is a problem of drink and drug abuse preceding offences, it ought to be possible to assess the drink and drug history of a prisoner as soon as he is admitted, and to start directing treatment programmes towards him.
It is not just a matter of having a good drug unit in a prison—as we do—or, indeed, a good alcohol unit. Some prisons have outstanding records in such treatment programmes. My point is that there is a low level of alcohol and drug abuse that we are not addressing. It is, at best, addressed from time to time by small group therapy sessions in prisons, depending on the availability of skilled prison officers, probation officers or visiting psychiatrists who can lay on such programmes. We are not dealing with the problem in a serious way.
That is why, in Monday's debate, I was so critical of the Minister. I wanted him to say, "Yes, we will devise a programme in which every prisoner, when he or she enters prison, is assessed in a more sophisticated and thorough manner for such problems." The current programme is too superficial.
Each prison should examine its staff resources to determine what they can offer people with drug and alcohol problems. The same programme could not be offered in every prison, but I should hope that some prisons would develop skills in dealing with prisoners with certain types of problem.
We should be prepared to consider moving people around the prison system for that purpose, although I understand the difficulties involved in doing so—such as keeping prisoners near their homes to maintain home links. Nevertheless, we could develop a much more sophisticated policy in offering prisoners treatment, rather than continuing the absurd approach of simply locking up criminals, throwing away the key and hoping that that will solve the crime problem.
I remind the Minister that, although the Home Secretary thinks that he is riding a wave of public opinion in favour of tough sentencing, such waves do not last. In 1979, the Tory party came to power with a strong commitment to get tough on crime and to lock up people. The short, sharp shock was the idea of the day. Lord Whitelaw, who was the Home Secretary after the 1979 general election, came in talking about such a shock; however, within a year or two, the policy had been abandoned, because the Government discovered that it did not work.
After the failure of that policy, successive Conservative Home Secretaries were accused within the Conservative party of being too soft on crime. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), a previous Home Secretary—who has now taken up a position with the Prison Reform Trust; I welcome the appointment—was one of the Home Secretaries criticised for being too soft on crime.
The current Home Secretary says that he will get tough on crime, lock up criminals, throw away the key and build splendid new prisons, at a cost of millions of pounds. However, it is only a matter of time before he discovers that that is the most appalling waste of public money and that it will only delay the onset of further offending, by keeping people off the streets for a short time and then releasing them with as many problems as they had before, if not more.
The Minister is not an insensitive man, and he is prepared to think about these matters. I ask him to give careful consideration to new clause 7, because it


demonstrates the type of thinking that we should be doing and gets away from simplistic nonsense, which I suppose has been fuelled by the proximity of the general election. If Ministers think that the public are fooled by tough talk, they are wrong. Crime levels are still rising; therefore—no matter how tough the talk or the sentences—the public will continue to feel that the Government are failing on law and order.
We must pay far more attention to crime prevention and detection, and to the conviction of offenders. After we convict and imprison offenders, we must have sensible education and social policies to reintegrate them upon their release back into society. We are doing very little of that now.

Mr. John Hutton: New clauses 7 and 13 are very sensible provisions to improve the Bill, and they should be incorporated into it. In his comments on new clause 7 in Monday's debate, the Minister—perhaps unintentionally—struck a rather complacent tone. He implied that the new clauses were not necessary, because sufficient powers were available to magistrates and other courts to require convicted defendants to undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependency.
The Minister was right to mention those powers. As I am sure he is aware, however, the new clauses, particularly new clause 7, in two respects provide significantly greater confirmation of those powers than provided for in paragraph 6 of schedule 1A of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which also confirms the powers.
First, under the provisions of paragraph 6 of schedule 1A, before the court imposes such a treatment order, it has to be satisfied that the person being convicted is dependent on drugs. If the Minister studies new clause 7, he will note that that test would no longer have to be satisfied.
I am aware that paragraph 6(9) of the schedule tends to broaden the concept of dependency by referring to a person simply having a propensity to misuse a serious drug, even though that in itself is a rather vague concept. The new clause cuts through such difficulties by making it clear that, if the defendant is using a class A drug, the power to compel him to undergo treatment is exercisable. That is a significant improvement.
Secondly, new clause 7 is more extensive, and therefore, I think, more effective. It provides the power to compel a person who has been convicted to undergo testing. As I understand it, paragraph 6 of schedule 1A of the 1973 Act provides that the court can compel a person to undergo treatment but has no powers to compel that person to undergo regular testing.
Of course, many people will argue that it is difficult to formulate an effective treatment programme if it is not accompanied by a power to require the person undergoing that treatment to be tested regularly in order to establish his or her level of dependency on drugs. If the test reveals that the person is using drugs continually and illicitly, the treatment programme is unlikely to be effective. The Minister might have inadvertently got the wrong end of the stick when he tried to dismiss the relevance of the new clause by saying that the necessary powers were already available to the courts—they are not.
In those two significant respects—compelling a defendant to undergo testing and broadening the court's powers to require a person to be tested—new clause 7 would significantly improve the provisions of the 1973 legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) spoke extensively about the problems that our prisons face in dealing with drugs. There is a huge problem, which I am sure the Minister recognises. Of course, there is a huge drug problem in society at large so perhaps we should not be surprised by signs of drug abuse in the prison population, too. If we are to tackle the problem of drugs in prisons, it is hugely important that we are not complacent and do not rest on our laurels, saying that the existing legislation cannot be improved and that the necessary arrangements are already in place.
The Addictive Diseases Trust, which now calls itself the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust and which is doing excellent work in some prisons, estimates that drug abuse in prisons is widespread. It also estimates that more than 50 per cent. of prisoners have a chronic and often severe addiction, but very little specialised intensive addiction treatment is available in prisons. It estimates that, in some prisons, as many as 80 per cent. of prisoners are using drugs. Many inmates who were not addicts when they entered prison have become addicted—often under pressure from drug pushers—by the time they are released.
The drug culture in many prisons is sinister, not only because it directly challenges the authority of the prison governor and staff but because it establishes a counter-culture, in which power is wielded by drug pushers who use their control of the supply of drugs and their consequent influence in profoundly unhelpful and damaging ways. In this context, it is important that we constantly examine how we respond to the problem of drugs in prison and whether more work cannot be done by the Home Office and the Prison Service. The drug culture is a direct challenge to the way in which we run our prisons.
Anyone who has visited a prison and talked to prisoners knows how grim the reality is in prison. That is not to say that many prisons are not trying to develop effective strategies to deal with drug abuse, because they are, and we should congratulate the Prison Service on its work in that respect. Nevertheless, the picture is pretty horrifying in many prisons.
I do not whether the Minister read The Guardian of 10 August 1994. It may not be his usual reading—it is not usually mine—but it contained a letter from a prisoner. I read it at the time, and it struck me as painting an horrific picture of drug abuse in prison. 1 shall quote from it, as it is relevant to our debate.
The prisoner in question, who was serving a long sentence, described his drug taking—he was taking them intravenously—in this way:
The syringe that we used today had been used approximately 100 times before by approximately 15 different prisoners.
It is a disposable insulin syringe, which I will describe briefly for you: the rubber at the end of the plunger has disintegrated completely through constant use. Instead of a rubber, we have a small piece of black polythene from a dustbin liner wrapped around the plunger and held in place by cotton thread.
The plunger itself is snapped in half and so the barrel of the syringe has been cut down accordingly. Each time the syringe is used, butter is smeared on to the polythene to facilitate the plunger to be depressed.


The needle, of which we have only one, has been cut in half with nail clippers to remove a blockage. We use a matchbox to sharpen it.
It is not possible to clean either the syringe or the needle in between injections as this would entail removing the polythene and tying it all back on again. Thus the risk of infection is monstrously high … The highest number of prisoners I have seen using a similar syringe, one after the other, is nine.
The prisoner says that he considers himself lucky to have contracted only hepatitis B and hepatitis C through the use of shared needles in prison. He has managed to avoid becoming infected with the HIV virus, but I suspect that he will not be successful for very much longer.
The prisoner also writes:
Despite many efforts to bring my addiction to an end, the sheer availability and the large number of addicts in prison mean that I consistently fail. There is no means of rehabilitation for addicts in prison and every reason for the addicts—particularly long-termers and lifers—to conceal their addiction.
That is a pretty grim and depressing picture, although things may have improved a little since 1994, when that letter was written.
For example, I am aware that the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust is now running a number of drug rehabilitation programmes in prisons such as Downview, Coldingley, Pentonville and Wandsworth. That is an excellent sign of progress, but there are still not enough rehabilitation programmes within the prison estate. It would be interesting if the Minister could say—perhaps not today but in the future—how many programmes there are and what their likely success rate is.
When Judge Stephen Tumim was the chief inspector of prisons, he commented favourably on the drug rehabilitation work being done at Downview. After his inspection, he recommended that the Home Office provide sufficient funding properly to evaluate the impact of that programme and the extent to which it had a more general application across the prison estate.
Taken together, new clauses 7 and 13 take us in the right direction. It would be a catastrophic mistake, in terms of the very purpose and function of prisons and certainly in terms of securing value for money for the taxpayer, if we continued to do so little about the problem of drug abuse.
As much as half of all property-related crime may well be drug-connected. There is undeniably a connection between drug abuse and property-related crime. The need of drug addicts to feed their habit, which may require £500 or £600 a day for heroin or crack cocaine, is having a huge impact on crime in many of our communities.
Drug problems are present not just in the inner cities, but in towns and cities across the country, and even in some rural areas. When offenders are sent to prison, we have a unique opportunity to try to correct their pattern of drug abuse. If we do not take that opportunity, the likelihood is that they will show up in prison again two or three years after being discharged—sometimes sooner than that—because their drug addiction was not effectively addressed while they were in prison. As the RAPT evidence has shown, there is a risk of drug abuse problems getting worse rather than better in prison, and feeding through to higher crime levels.
The two new clauses would take us forward. They would require more work from the Home Office in establishing rehabilitation programmes in prison, and

would give the courts useful additional powers that they do not possess. I urge the Minister to think again about his position on the new clauses. He may feel that the wording is not perfect, although it draws heavily on the wording of schedule 1A of the 1973 Act, so it may be hard to criticise the new clauses for that. The new powers available to the court would take their testing and treatment powers in a positive direction. I therefore hope that the Minister is prepared to be more positive than he was on Monday.

Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on their excellent speeches. With his customary knowledge of these subjects and his huge experience, gained partly in the probation service before he came to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith gave some useful insights and an effective critique of the lack of thought behind the Minister's speech on Monday. I shall say more in a moment about the deficiencies in the Minister's reaction to the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness made some very useful points. I associate myself with his congratulations to the Prison Service on the work that it already does to rehabilitate drug offenders. From my experience of visiting prisons, I know that a lot of work is done. There is an increasing realisation that prisoners must be forced to confront their behaviour, particularly their addictive behaviour, towards certain types of drug. That is successful. The problem is that there is no systematic rehabilitation programme for drug offenders in prison.
Drug abuse in prison is still too common. Everybody, from Her Majesty's chief inspector to the Prison Service, acknowledges that the problems are severe. I do not want to bandy statistics about, but every hon. Member, irrespective of their opinion of the Bill or the new clause, would be horrified by the amount of drug abuse that still goes on in prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness made that point well, and I join him in congratulating the Prison Service.
My hon. Friend also made the good point that the House must consider the opportunities that exist prison by prison for people to confront their drug abuse and get into a programme that gives them a chance to get away from drug abuse and into a cleaner life style. We have had a useful debate, and my two hon. Friends have made constructive contributions.
5.15 pm
I should like to refer to what happened on Monday. On Tuesday morning, I was travelling to Staffordshire to campaign with a colleague. I picked up a paper, only to find that the Home Secretary had apparently said that the Government had chosen not to move the 10 o'clock motion, thereby terminating Monday's debate, because of the delaying tactics of the Opposition.
I read the entire Hansard report of our debates on the new clauses on Monday, and I found no evidence of any hon. Members on either side of the House wasting any time. Those comments show gross disrespect to the Chair. If any of my hon. Friends or I had practised any delaying tactics, we would have been called up by the


Chair. Perhaps I should correct the impression that I have just given; the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) occasionally wasted the House's time, but the Opposition were not responsible for it. That is his responsibility and he will have to deal with his Front Bench.
It is not true that we were wasting time. If the Government had had patience, we could have reached Third Reading on Monday night, or perhaps in the early hours of Tuesday. There would have been no problem with that. Theirs was the decision to terminate the debate, and theirs is the responsibility for the Bill not yet completing its Commons stages. The Opposition bear no responsibility for that. The Home Secretary should be ashamed of trying to play cheap politics when we are making constructive suggestions.
The Government's opposition to the new clauses is based on a confused interpretation of what is happening in prisons. The Minister has some contradictory and muddled arguments about the purposes of our new clauses and their effects. On Monday, he said:
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is absolutely right to sing the praises of drug treatment as an alternative to prison and to say that there should be such treatment in prison".
That is fair enough. He went on to say:
schedule 1A to the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973, supported by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, provides all the necessary legislation to give the courts the power to pass community sentences that are conditional upon following drug treatment.
However, the Minister failed to provide supporting evidence for those assertions. He did not take into account the need to mandate those offenders in prison to treatment. There is no compulsion—a point that he also made. The purpose of new clauses 7 and 13 is to mandate treatment during community and prison sentences. If, as he asserts, all the necessary legislation has been on the statute book since 1991 and
nothing more needs to be added",
why, by the end of 1996, could the Home Office not provide even a rough estimate of the amount of drug rehabilitation in prisons? I shall happily give way if the Minister wants to provide evidence, but the evidence to support his contentions simply does not exist.
I was told in a recent parliamentary answer that the only information available on drug rehabilitation related to time spent in detox. Although we recognise the value of detox, there is clearly a desperate need for rehabilitation programmes that force offenders to address their drug use. Although detox has a valuable role, we cannot get people off drugs simply by the physical process; they have to understand why they need to come off them, what their habit is doing to their lives and the potential of their becoming clean and free of drugs.
On Monday, the Minister made a rough estimate that
There are now between 50 and 60 schemes in prisons.
He made no estimate of the number of prisoners undergoing treatment. Nor do any of the schemes force prisoners into treatment. He cited a scheme in Plymouth
where the Devon probation service is running a drug assessment and stabilisation programme.
He praised the scheme's success, and I join him in that. He continued:
It appeared that all those who were on the programme were not simply avoiding prison, but wanted to get off drugs and had been offered an opportunity to do so.

However, the success of one community scheme in no way supports his argument that nothing more needs to be done. He does not appear to have grasped the size of the problem or the inadequacy of the Government's current response.
Let me refresh the Minister's memory. In 1995, there were 37,164 registered addicts. Empirical evidence suggests that around half all property crime is committed by people seeking to fund a drug habit. That is not an excuse; nobody would excuse any crime committed for that reason, but many drug users commit crimes to feed their habit.
Yesterday, I spent some time in Staffordshire. The police confirmed that drugs are a major cause of crime in the county. The Merseyside police and the Metropolitan police have made the same point. Any chief constable in England, Wales and probably Scotland would confirm it. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis recently estimated that, in London, the proportion of drug-related crime is closer to 60 per cent.
We need to have an idea of the scale of the problem to evaluate the inadequacy of the Minister's response. In 1996, there were 158 establishments holding prisoners, but according to the Minister's own figures, there are only 50 to 60 drug rehabilitation schemes in prisons, so less than 40 per cent. of the prison estate has a scheme in place. There is no universal standard across the Prison Service, and although most prisons have a drug problem, only around 40 per cent. of prisons have any means of dealing with it. There is no room for complacency, as some 60 per cent. of prisons have no means of rehabilitating those involved in drug abuse. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. New clauses 7 and 13 seek to do so in a responsible and intelligent way.
There are no universal standards across the Prison Service. I have no clear idea—nor, I suspect, has anyone in the Home Office—that one scheme works better than the others. There are contentious issues involved, such as those surrounding the use of methadone, and some schemes need to be evaluated more thoroughly. Unless we conduct evaluations and set and adhere to universal standards, the problem will continue.
People still go into prison without a drug habit, pick up a drug habit there, and come out addicted. Unless we can apply universal standards across the Prison Service, the problem will continue. The complacency of the Minister's response is a matter for serious concern.
The Prison Service has no estimate of the time spent on rehabilitation or the number of prisoners who pass through existing schemes. There is a similar problem in the community outside. There are no national standards for rehabilitation, so there are significant regional variations. If an addict lives in an area where rehabilitation schemes are available but does not know where to go for treatment, he will not have the opportunity to get off drugs and into a drug-free life style. Given the scale of the problem nationally, we have to address it in a co-ordinated way by applying standards across the country and by providing opportunities for people to get out of drug abuse.
Sentencing practices lack consistency across the country, even within prison catchment areas. That highlights the need for guidance and direction from the Home Office towards diversion into treatment, or treatment in prison, as appropriate.
The provision of treatment for drug-using prisoners who wish to kick the habit will solve only part of the problem. The Minister seems to think that provision for less than 40 per cent. of the prison estate will satisfy the needs of all prisoners who wish to address their addiction. Frankly, that is inadequate. The Minister appears to have overlooked the options that force offenders into treatment. On Monday he said:
Treatment has been stimulated further by mandatory drug testing in prisons. However, it is not necessarily possible to accelerate further the process … because prisoners who have drug treatment or who enter drug-free wings are essentially volunteers.
That is true. The Minister implied that enforced treatment simply would not work, but the evidence, if he bothered to read it, is that enforced treatment can be just as successful as voluntary treatment. A Home Office report by Michael Hough entitled "Drugs Misuse and the Criminal Justice System" published in 1996 noted:
legally coerced treatment is no less effective than treatment entered 'voluntarily'".
Treatment that includes an element of compulsion can be highly cost effective. American research suggests that every ․1 spent on treatment saves ․7 in criminal justice and other social costs. Schemes that focus on early intervention and intensive supervision of drug-addicted offenders can lead to immediate savings in criminal justice costs.
In addition, the costs of mandatory drug testing—the introduction of which we supported—may have unintentionally acted as a drain on resources for rehabilitation. To date, no evidence has been put forward to support the Minister's claim that mandatory drug testing has stimulated rehabilitation; as the Opposition suggested on Monday, it may be quite the opposite. A small but definite trend in the statistics show that there is a shift in drug abuse in prisons away from the use of cannabis towards the use of opiates such as heroin and cocaine.
On Monday, the Minister stated:
I do not want to sound complacent, because for years there was very little progress on drug treatment in prisons. We witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of people who may not have been drug users but who came out, typically, as heroin addicts."—[Official Report, 13 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 110–11.]
I agree with him. Unfortunately, what he described is still happening. He speaks as if, as a result of the introduction of mandatory drug testing, all the problems have gone away—they have not; they are still there. We have tabled new clauses 7 and 13 because we believe that more action must be taken.
5.30 pm
The Minister's logic seems remarkable. He accepts anecdotal evidence that, prior to the introduction of mandatory drug testing, offenders entered prison without a drug habit but left "typically, as heroin addicts"; now we have substantial evidence to demonstrate the disturbing shift to opiate use, he disputes it. The logic of that escapes me, so I hope that he will spend some time explaining it to the House.
There is evidence that, between 1 March and 30 September 1996, the percentage of random drug tests showing positive for opiates increased from 5.94 per

cent. to 6.35 per cent. That represents—I think that the Minister now accepts this figure—an increase of about 7 per cent. in the proportion of prisoners testing positive for opiates. If we project that on to the prison population as a whole, the number of prisoners regularly using opiates has increased from about 3,192 to 3,595.
A report in the journal Druglink published in June last year stated:
The inmate population is well aware of the mechanics of urine testing and already there is an alarming degree of anecdotal evidence of drug mis-users favouring heroin (an opiate) over cannabis in certain situations, as it does not show up in tests so long after use.
The Minister suggests that he does not understand a number of our proposals, but he ought to understand that such a shift is taking place and that inmates understand what they are doing when they move from soft to hard drugs. In some respects, rightly or wrongly, they do so to evade capture.
The Minister rightly pointed out that amphetamines, when not injected, are class B drugs and would therefore be excluded from the provisions proposed by new clause 7. I accept that, but he ought to take into account two facts. First, the new clause's purpose is to target the most problematic and addictive users, who tend to have opiate-based addictions that often involve other drug types. Typically, they may prefer to use cocktails of drugs on occasions. Secondly, the Minister's observation in no way weakens the argument for either new clause 7 or new clause 13. Indeed, if anything, it is an argument for increasing the powers in them.
Not enough thought has been put into the Government's opposition to our proposals. All we got from the Minister on Monday was a knee-jerk reaction: if the Opposition propose it, it must be wrong. The general public are sick and tired of the Government's negative approach and of important problems such as drug abuse in the prison system and elsewhere being used as a political football. When the Opposition come up with a good idea, the Government simply reject it, yet the public rightly want co-operation on such matters. If we make useful suggestions, the Government should simply take them on board.
If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, there are problems with the new clauses, we can put them right during subsequent stages of the Bill, "But no, it is unnecessary," says the Minister. Even when we prove that action is necessary, he still does not relent. The new clauses may be imperfect. If there are drafting problems, we are willing to co-operate in putting them right in another place—but no. The only defect of new clauses 7 and 13 is that the Opposition rather than the Government have proposed them. That is a pathetic way of dealing with such problems and certainly not one of which I want to be part.
We hope that those who sent us to the House will note that, although we have tried to play a constructive role by suggesting improvements to the Bill, particularly where it affects those who are abusing drugs, the Government have not wanted to co-operate. I hope that, in future, even in the Government's dying days, we can co-operate on such important issues and make progress. On the evidence of Monday's response—I hope that the Minister is prepared to make a constructive response today—that will not happen. It is wrong to play politics with such issues and


not to listen to constructive suggestions, and the public will note that, if such an attitude prevails, the sooner the Government leave office, the better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I must comment briefly on what has been said today and on Monday. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggested that the approach to treatment in prisons is unco-ordinated, and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said that very little is being done. I take issue with that. I said that there are between 50 and 60 schemes in operation in prisons. In fact, there are 59. They are by necessity very diverse. Drug treatment is relatively new to prisons, and many of the services being provided are themselves relatively new. One cannot, overnight, install drug treatment or rehabilitation schemes throughout the prison system as though they were something physical, such as central heating.

Mr. Hutton: rose—

Mr. Sackville: I shall not give way; we have spent a long time debating these new clauses.
The services need to be brought in, and the right ones need to be found. All sorts of methods are being used, from total abstinence—the Minnesota method as it is called—in a group of prisons, including Downview, right through to detoxification units and services run by Phoenix house. Those are very different services, and we shall see in time which are the most successful. It is my impression that all of them are having a considerable effect. They are being well used, and I am optimistic. We should not be so negative about what has been achieved through the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister who is in charge of prisons in getting such services up and running.
It has been suggested that additional powers are needed. I remind the House that a judge can order that a sentence be served in the community by a person who has been convicted so long as he or she follows a drug treatment programme. That programme may or may not include mandatory testing. The decision is essentially not up to the judge; it is up to the provider of the treatment to decide—the decision must be acceptable to the judge as a precondition—whether it contains mandatory drug testing. I suspect that most programmes would contain it.
The programme that I have held up as a model—the one in Plymouth, which is not the only model—does contain mandatory drug testing. If any person following that treatment does not fulfil all the programme's requirements, they are in breach and they are in gaol. That is the important thing. It is really up to the provider of the treatment to be the first person to indicate when such a breach has occurred.
I have great respect for the knowledge of the hon. Member for Hammersmith in these matters, given his long professional background and the fact that he has a well-known prison in his constituency. I accept that this place occasionally obliges even the most sensible and serious hon. Members to trade insults across the Floor, but if I did not I might take considerable personal offence at being told that I am complacent about drugs. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that I was co-founder of the all-party drug misuse committee and was its secretary for

three years. I founded that committee 11 years ago, and in the same year published a slim volume on the subject of heroin misuse called, "Heroin: Threat to a Generation" of which I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy.
In the past year and a half, since taking on my present job, I have been round the country visiting every drug prevention initiative run by the Home Office. I have talked with most of the drug action team chairmen and I have been as far afield as Ankara and Bogota in pursuit of new agreements between this and other countries to address the drug problem. I seriously believe that, on this issue, I am perhaps one of the least complacent Members of Parliament.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Sackville: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind I shall not give way.
For the reasons I have outlined, I am pleased to say that there has been good progress—although we need to go further—in providing drug treatment in prisons. It cannot all be done overnight. I am also pleased to say that I believe that all the powers are available to courts to issue conditional sentences, which are an excellent means of diversion from prison for those with a drug problem. Although the new clauses may represent a good opportunity to discuss this serious problem, I do not believe that they are necessary, and I am unable to commend them to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 296.

Division No. 39]
[5.41 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Church, Ms Judith


Ashdown, Paddy
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joseph
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beith, A J
Connarty, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Ms Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blair, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dafis, Cynog


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davidson, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Cabom, Richard
Davis, Terry (Sham Hodge H)


Callaghan, Jim
Denham, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McFall, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
McLeish, Henry


Ennis, Jeff
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Fatchett, Derek
MacShane, Denis


Faulds, Andrew
McWilliam, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Galbraith, Sam
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gilbert, Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Milburn, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gunnell, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Henderson, Doug
Oakes, Gordon


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
Olner, Bill


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Rendel, David


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kaufman, Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Keen, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Sheldon, Robert


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Short, Clare


Khabra, Piara S
Simpson, Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Spellar, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)





Steel, Sir David
Wallace, James


Steinberg, Gerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Stevenson, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Stott, Roger
Wareing, Robert N


Strang, Dr Gavin
Watson, Mike


Straw, Jack
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wray, Jimmy


Trickett, Jon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Walker, Sir Harold
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Eggar, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Elletson, Harold


Booth, Hartley
Emery, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowis, John
Evennett, David


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Faber, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Fabricant, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright, Sir Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brooke, Peter
Fishburn, Dudley


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Forman, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nicholas
Fowler, Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Gale, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Gallie, Phil


Cash, William
Gardiner, Sir George


Channon, Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Garnier, Edward


Churchill, Mr
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Goodlad, Alastair


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa






Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Molyneaux, Sir James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Heseltine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Sir Terence
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Porter, David


Horam, John
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, David (Guilafd)
Redwood, John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Douglas
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Herefd)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kynoch, George
Sims, Sir Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Legg, Barry
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sproat, lain


MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Mariow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John D (Strangfd)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Sir Tedd


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thomason, Roy





Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wheeler, Sir John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Whittingdale, John


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Tredinnick, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trend, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Willetts, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, William
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Young, Sir George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Sebastian Coe.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 14

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

'—(1) Where a person of not less than 14 years of age is convicted of an imprisonable offence, the court by or before which he is convicted may make an order that he shall be subject to corporal punishment.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make rules for the administration of the sentence of corporal punishment.'.—[Mr. Marlow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I tabled the new clause with the support, after a short trawl, of 29 of my hon. Friends. I am committed to the powers and sovereignties of the House and, in general, I do not believe that any international involvements or commitments should stand in the way of the House doing what it believes to be right for this country in this country.
It may seem to some bloodthirsty, even Neanderthal, to propose anything as mediaeval as the reintroduction of corporal punishment, but unfortunately—as everyone in the House must know—most of our citizens, especially the law abiding, the old, the poor and defenceless, are daily threatened by an escalating savagery and barbarism that is much more bloodthirsty and Neanderthal than corporal punishment while their tormentors, who so readily and callously destroy peace of mind and quality of life, have nothing to fear. As we all know, crime—particularly hooligan crime—is getting worse. As yet, no effective solution has been proposed, still less enacted.
That is fine for us in this place who, by and large, have a good standard of living. We are privileged, and we have a choice as to the area in which we live. We are cocooned in our relative prosperity. But for many of our constituents, life is hell. It is different out there. If hon. Members had to live in the intimidatory conditions imposed upon many of our constituents, we would be less precious, less squeamish and less elitist in our approach to the problem. As the problem has worsened, we have wrung our hands—but otherwise looked away.
6 pm
We have a duty that for too long we have neglected. We need to make an urgent impact, and to do that we must be imaginative. We must break away from the parrot cries—one of which we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)—about the need for better rates of detection. Of course we need better rates of detection, which will help. But we need effective deterrents—deterrents that truly deter. We need effective treatments—treatments that reform. By no stretch of the imagination are either of those available yet.
I recommend two approaches. First, for those who have gone off the rails for the first time, I recommend the judicious development of a system of outward bound training. Those who, perhaps, have had a bad start in life or who have taken a wrong turning can be sent on a course into the mountains to work with and take responsibility for others as part of a team. They can be challenged and, perhaps, they will succeed. If they satisfy the rigorous training conditions, they can pass out with an award of esteem. For many of our confused and alienated young, such a scheme could establish a basis of purpose and confidence in their lives on which they could build to become useful and satisfied citizens, rather than being sucked deeper into a vortex of a criminal sub-culture.
Those who are more hardened and contemptuous of society—and only them—I would threaten with the new clause. Corporal punishment should be made available to the courts in place of imprisonment, with a system of corporal punishment introduced later by statutory instrument. At whom would I target this punishment? Basically, anti-social youth—the mugger, the ram-raider, the vandal, the graffiti artist, the hooligan, those who seek to intimidate potential witnesses and the tin-pot Napoleons who seek the admiration of their peers by ever more outrageous behaviour.
Why should we apparently seek to turn back the pages of history? I believe that our first duty is to safeguard the quality of life of many of our citizens whose lives have been made miserable by these malcontents. I believe that no current deterrent or penalty is effective, and I do not believe that any Member of this House can honestly say that corporal punishment would not be a deterrent. I do not believe any historical analysis that suggests that corporal punishment fell into disuse when it was last available because nobody wanted to use it as it was not effective. However, circumstances at that time were different from those of today. At that time, we had a disciplined society—now we do not. Corporal punishment would have a great effect on criminal patterns of behaviour. Bullies are also cowards.
I do not envisage corporal punishment as a daily occurrence, and some judges and magistrates may be reluctant to impose it. In most of our cities the cane could be kept in the cupboard, but threats—along with reports of the circumstances of its occasional use—would be sufficient for it to work. Some hon. Members may feel that such a proposal is out of date—even barbaric. They have had more than a generation to prove their case and to suggest alternative remedies. They have manifestly failed.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are often told that there is no evidence to suggest that corporal punishment would work,

and we are asked why we propose it? Does he further agree that there is no real evidence to suggest that corporal punishment would not work as a deterrent?

Mr. Marlow: Common sense, our experience of history and evidence from other countries in, for example, the middle east—although I am not suggesting that we follow the line taken in the middle east—suggest that such policies are a deterrent.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the effect of secure training orders on young people? The Government introduced those orders only recently. Is he saying that they have already failed?

Mr. Marlow: I am not saying that any particular course of action or proposal from the Government has failed, but everyone would agree that the levels of crime—particularly hooligan crime—and disruption on some of our poorer estates are much greater than those of the past. We have a continuing social problem and although some measures are doing some good, we have not solved the problem yet.
Without the reintroduction of corporal punishment, we will not satisfy the needs of our constituents—whatever pious hopes we have and however liberal we might feel. Something has to be done. The present system is not working and we do not have a solution yet. My final point is that a truth—an unpleasant truth, but a truth nevertheless—that has been proved by history is, sadly, that civilisation cannot be maintained without an element of barbarism to protect it.

Mr. Llwyd: I did not intend to contribute to the debate, as I have other—if I may say so—more important matters that I wish to discuss later. I have seldom disagreed so vehemently with any hon. Member.

Mrs. Peacock: Rubbish.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the hon. Lady for that—that was typical of her contributions in this House. I disagree root and branch with what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said. He ignored the fact that a large percentage of young people involved in crime are from traumatised backgrounds themselves. They have seen domestic violence—sometimes severe violence—at first hand. They have seen mother being kicked around and father being dragged out by a brother-in-law, and so on. The sanction that the hon. Gentleman now wants is for society to traumatise those young people yet again. He used the word "barbaric", but that is too soft a word for what he intends. I think that his is the authentic voice of darkness and regression in this House. This is nonsense in what is supposed to be a serious debate about penal policy.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: More and more in my postbag, I receive requests from quite mild constituents who wish the return of corporal punishment. These often come after pictures of the battered features of elderly ladies and gentlemen—or, not infrequently, stories about 70 or 80-year-old women who have been raped—appear on the front page of our local newspapers.
It has been said that corporal punishment does not work. Yet years ago, I practised as a barrister in the courts in the east end of London. On one occasion, we were discussing corporal punishment before the court commenced. The probation officer was vehemently against it, and said that his client that day had been caned on the Isle of Man but was back before the court once again. There then came a voice from the corner saying, "I wouldn't do it again on the Isle of Man". That is the point. Those who have had a dose of corporal punishment do not come back for a second one. It is not a glorious punishment about which they can boast to their colleagues.
I believe that corporal punishment would act as an enormous deterrent to muggers and those to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred—those to whom the dignity of life of others is of no importance. They humiliate people and steal their prized possessions, and they deserve corporal punishment.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I support the new clause. I have argued for corporal punishment on many occasions and I am pleased to do so again. Last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that attracted more support than I had expected. I served on the Standing Committee on the Bill now under discussion, but I did not table an amendment. However, in 1984, I believe, on the Criminal Justice Bill, there was a whole day's debate on an amendment that I had tabled on the subject. It is an important subject, about which our constituents are concerned. They believe that corporal punishment would be a deterrent, and to my mind that is extremely important.
The Isle of Man has already been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) asked in an intervention whether there was a case against corporal punishment. Before I tabled my amendment in 1984, I visited the Isle of Man to see what the position was. At that time, the law was still on the statute book there, but was not being used.
I was told by the chief constable on the island that when crowds came over from Liverpool and Manchester for football matches, people arriving in the harbour at Douglas would invariably ask his officers on the gates whether it was true that there was still corporal punishment on the island. When they were told that that was indeed the case, the response was, "Don't worry, Guy, we won't cause any trouble while we're here."
Corporal punishment is a deterrent, and that was demonstrated on the Isle of Man. I strongly believe that we should reintroduce it here. The Opposition will no doubt suggest that it is degrading and that the European Court of Human Rights would say the same. When we talk of degradation, we should think of the victims, and how degrading it is for them.
There has been another change since 1984, because the Government have been questioning the powers of the European Court of Human Rights. When the renewal came up, serious doubts were expressed, whereas I remember that when I asked the then Prime Minister in 1980 whether she would withdraw our signature from the convention, she said no. I believe that the time is coming when the court will take so different a view from ours on what the law should be that we will withdraw from it.
On the categories of offenders on whom the courts should be able to impose such punishment, I believe that they should include youngsters who attack elderly people and mug them for only a few pounds. I believe that their treatment of those elderly people is a degrading act, and that corporal punishment would be of great advantage in such cases. When it was known that a court was prepared to order such punishment to be carried out, there would soon be a reduction in such crimes. Even if some benches were initially nervous of introducing it, other benches would quickly prove that it was working as a deterrent. It is with great pleasure that I support the new clause.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is no part of the case against the reintroduction of corporal punishment to deny that some young people are recalcitrant, that their crimes against those more vulnerable and weaker than themselves are horrible and that the state has found it difficult to determine a satisfactory system to punish them or to teach them the error of their ways, but the facts do not support the contention that corporal punishment can be brought back to fill that gap.
The experience of the use of corporal punishment in this country was not the glowing success that is implied by the supporters of the new clause. Corporal punishment has proved ineffective in the fight against crime: when it was available for robbery with violence, before its abolition in 1948, three separate Government surveys found that offenders who underwent it committed more subsequent crimes than similar offenders who received other sentences.

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a different age, with different circumstances, morality and expectations. If that is his argument against the reintroduction of corporal punishment, perhaps he would allow a trial period, to see whether it would work in today's circumstances.

Mr. Beith: I shall go on in a moment to put the case why we should not reintroduce it at all, but I think that I may be permitted to draw on the experience of Britain in the post-war years if others can draw on the experience of the Isle of Man to try to make their point. The comparison that we must make is with the time when corporal punishment existed here.
Before 1948, the number of robberies with violence had been rising steadily, yet it fell in each of the three years after abolition and did not rise again to the same levels until 10 years later. That suggests that corporal punishment was not a crucial or even useful factor in preventing those crimes.
6.15 pm
Many of the young people whom some Conservative Members would consider suitable for corporal punishment have already been the subject of severe physical punishment or attack in the course of their upbringing.

Dame Jill Knight: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right about that, but the new clause would give the power only to the judge, who would have all the evidence at his fingertips. I have


put my name to the new clause because I am happy to leave it to the judge to make what he feels to be the wisest judgment in a particular case.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady has a point. If the power were available to them, judges would be likely to use it very infrequently, because they would be persuaded by the arguments that I am advancing. I am arguing against the reintroduction of corporal punishment, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who said that it would be the reintroduction of a system that has been unfashionable since the days of Palmerston; he delivered a scathing attack on the idea that it could properly be reincorporated into our system. In the inconceivable event—given the Government's stated opposition—that the House reintroduced corporal punishment, it would be used very little by the courts.
Reintroduction would contravene our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, as was clear from the 1978 Tyrer case and from our experience in relation to the Isle of Man. Those who have begun to try to persuade the Government that we should withdraw from the convention should have regard to the fact that we subscribe to it not simply to set a standard against which to judge what happens here, but to assist the upholding of human rights in countries throughout Europe. To withdraw from the convention would be to withdraw our support for the upholding of human rights in all respects, and that would be an extremely bad step for Britain to take.
Reintroduction would also create problems in relation to the medical professions and the law. A medical practitioner would have to be present when corporal punishment was administered, which would contravene the World Medical Association's 1975 Tokyo declaration, which laid down that doctors should not participate in, or be present at, any procedure during which
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
is used.

Mr. Hawksley: When I tabled my amendment in 1984, the British Medical Association issued a press statement saying that it would not support it, but I had letters from doctors throughout the country saying that they were prepared to carry out their responsibilities if the law approved.

Mr. Beith: I have said in another context that one can find some doctor somewhere to support any proposition. In a very different area of argument and policy, I have argued strongly against the idea that two doctors signing a form demonstrates that something is acceptable. That, however, is another subject.
The medical profession contains a wide variety of people, but there is a prevailing assumption in it, here and abroad, that the skills of medical science should not be used in support of degrading or cruel punishment.
The true burden of the case is that corporal punishment is not effective: its record would in no way justify the sacrifice of principle and international obligation that would be involved in reintroducing it.

Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Beith: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks, because I am looking forward to hearing the official Labour party view, which I take to be strong opposition, although these days one cannot be entirely sure; I do not know precisely what methods are considered appropriate to sweep the squeegee merchants and graffiti artists off the streets, but I hope that that will soon become abundantly clear.

Mr. Alun Michael: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman, when commenting on the Labour party's policies, would refer to what Labour Members have said and not to the inaccurate phrases used in The Times. We are precise in what we say, and our opposition to this new clause is clear, so we do not need to make a meal of it.

Mr. Beith: I hope that that opposition will take the form of a short and concise speech setting out in terms that the Labour party will oppose the amendment. Labour Members must be trying to keep a low profile if we have to rely on a mere intervention in my speech, whereas the Government will not be able to keep a low profile. I look forward to a stalwart rebuttal of the case for the new clause from the Government.

Mr. John Townend: I want to take up Opposition Members' point that corporal punishment is not a deterrent. In recent years, there has been an explosion in crime and vandalism by young people. We are seeing a decay as a result of the ending of caning in schools.
I can give an interesting example of a headmaster of one of the large comprehensive schools in my constituency, who is now retired and whose school I visited seven or eight years ago. He was well known for his left-wing views—he is certainly not a member of the Conservative party—yet he said to me, "John, you would be surprised that, when it comes to the cane, I agree with your views. I have never used the cane very much. I have used it sparingly, but I believe that I have saved five or six boys from a life of crime, because I caned them at a critical stage in their school career when they were turning into bullies and little thugs." That is very true.
Ten or 15 years ago, it would have been inconceivable that 12, 14 or 15-year-olds would be capable of stealing not one but five, 10 or 15 cars. I cannot help but believe that it would be far better for them, and far more effective, if they were given six strokes of the cane the first time they were caught, rather than being warned or freed to steal more cars and to put their lives and those of many others at risk.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman referred to the explosion of crime in the past 10 or 15 years. Has it occurred to him that one of the hallmarks of the Thatcher-Major period is the creation of a selfish society, in which avarice is at the forefront?


Among the consequences of the Government's policies in a range of areas are the growth in crime and the lowering of values.

Mr. Townend: That is a load of nonsense. Young children who steal cars do not do so to use them. I own a hotel, and I can tell hon. Members that such young people play Monopoly. They go up to the hotel at the top of the hill and steal a blue car, and they bring it down and dump it at the hotel at the bottom of the hill and steal a red car. They steal cars because they think that it is a great game. I am convinced that if they were given six of the best they would not do that.
What is the ultimate deterrent in schools now that we do not use the cane? It is exclusion from school. Youngsters are excluded and end up on the streets. Is that not an invitation for them to become involved in crime and to commit vandalism? There has been an enormous increase in crime. We cannot possibly have enough places for so many young people. In my constituency, a place for one of those youngsters costs an astronomical £57,000 a year.
We cannot ignore costs. One of the best arguments for bringing back corporal punishment for youngsters is that it is very cheap. If they are caned the first time that they do something and they do not do it again, we save a lot of money. If they do it again, we should perhaps consider other options.
I hope that the Government do not argue against the amendment on the ground that we are signatories to the European convention on human rights. We were one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights. When we signed the convention, human rights meant no torture, no arrest without trial, a free press and free speech.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will be aware that the convention was never put to the House of Commons. It was signed by the Labour Prime Minister, but no discussion took place in the House—if it had, the document would have been a jolly sight more workmanlike.

Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend is right. If the founders had stuck to their original intentions, there would have been no problem, but, just like the European Union and every bureaucratic body, the court is always trying to extend its competence.
We face appalling problems of crime and juvenile crime. It cannot be right that, if elected Members of the House decide to bring back the cane and judicial corporal punishment, we should be prevented from doing so by a foreign court with foreign judges—except for one British judge—with a completely different history and from a completely different culture. It may be acceptable to the Italian people never to have corporal punishment, but I do not see why there must be conformity on this matter.
In my constituency, people are pig-sick of vandalism, thuggery, old people not daring to go out at night and cars being stolen and vandalised. If we do not do something about the problem in the next 10 years—I say this seriously—we will have what none of us want: an increase in vigilantes. I support the amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): This has been a short but interesting debate. I listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). My hon. Friends know from which direction I come on these matters, although I confess that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) thinks that I am going slightly soft in my old age. He has accused me of being an unreconstructed wet, and has threatened to put me through the wringer to dry me out a bit. However, most of my hon. Friends do not take that view of my attitude to these matters.
I am not satisfied that corporal punishment would, in practice, be a useful punishment today, or that we should seek to provide for it in the Bill. It is now almost 40 years since corporal punishment was abolished as a sentence of the court. My hon. Friends argue that corporal punishment would be a deterrent. If it were to act as a deterrent, it would have to be used regularly, predictably and immediately. Frankly, I do not believe that that would be the case.

Mr. Townend: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: I shall give way in a moment.
Corporal punishment has a role to play for parents who administer sensible discipline to their children owing to the immediacy of the infliction of the punishment on the youngster who is doing wrong. Judicial flogging in the cool light of day after many months or, I suspect, years later after dozens of appeals—as in some of the cases in the United States—would not be an effective deterrent.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we were able to use corporal punishment in schools—as we always did—it would not be necessary to have judicial corporal punishment, which he condemns?

Mr. Maclean: That is an entirely different area, into which I will not stray, because we have a lot of other business to conduct. No doubt, a philosophical debate on the merits of corporal punishment at all levels of society—in schools, by parents on their children or judicial flogging—would be an interesting occasion at some point, but I do not want to get into that at the moment.

Mr. Townend: My right hon. Friend said that if we reintroduced corporal punishment it would have to be used regularly to be a deterrent. Does he accept that it is a deterrent in the Isle of Man, although it is used only once or twice a year on average? It was also an effective deterrent in schools, although the headmaster to whom I referred used the cane only once a term.

Mr. Maclean: The climate was different when we last had corporal punishment. Many people would assert—although I may not be one of them—that judges in those days were more robust than some are these days and that they had harder attitudes to the punishment of criminals in the 1930s and 1940s. If, in that climate and with that sort of judge, corporal punishment was not used then, do my hon. Friends seriously think that if it was back on


the statute book today judges would rush to use judicial flogging? I cannot imagine it happening. If judges in the 1940s did not use it, I am fairly certain, without impugning the integrity of any of today's great judges, that few would use it now.
There is another dimension, and this is not an excuse that I am hiding behind but a practical legal fact, as the infliction of judicial flogging would almost certainly be contrary to the UK's obligations under the European convention on human rights. If my hon. Friends want to debate the convention, they can table a suitable subject that may be selected by Madam Speaker for debate on the Adjournment or on some other occasion.
I will not now debate the merits or demerits of Britain's signing the convention. We are party to it and the British Government have no proposals to withdraw from it at the present moment. That means that we are bound by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in 1978 in the Tyrer case, which involved a birching on the Isle of Man, that such punishment was incompatible with article 3 of the convention. It found that the birching imposed on Tyrer constituted degrading punishment within the meaning of article 3 and emphasised that it considered corporal punishment to be "institutionalised violence", with the individual being
treated as an object in the power of the authorities".

Mrs. Peacock: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend, but what about the almost institutionalised violence that many elderly people suffer in their own homes? Rightly, they and their relatives believe that some pain should be inflicted on the young people who cause that damage.

Mr. Maclean: Such violence is deplorable, which is why we have increased the penalties for those who commit it. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 propose some of the most dramatic action taken since the war to deal with habitual, persistent and violent criminals. Clause 1 introduces automatic life sentences for the most violent criminals. Clause 2 proposes seven-year sentences for the evil people who peddle drugs. Clause 3 deals with persistent burglars who terrorise people by their activities. My hon. Friend supported those measures. The Opposition could not make up their mind, but one day I hope that they may vote for them. That is the action that we are taking. Such penalties, the increasing numbers in prison and our success in getting crime down over the past three years mean that the policies of imprisonment have worked. We will continue those policies.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am sure that Conservative Members warmly welcome tougher penalties for persistent offenders, whether they are violent offenders, burglars or sex offenders, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the short, sharp shock of corporal punishment might deter less-experienced offenders from carrying on with a life of crime, so that they would not reach the stage envisaged in the Bill's first three clauses?

Mr. Maclean: I have listened to what my hon. Friends have said on that matter. We could have an interesting, and long, philosophical debate on the deterrent value of corporal punishment, but that is irrelevant to today's debate. It is crystal clear that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would be contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. There is no point in speculating on the merits of something that the House could not introduce while Britain is party to the convention. That is why we have concentrated on making the present range of punishments as effective as we can by strengthening the powers of the courts, increasing the sentences of imprisonment that can be imposed on the most violent offenders, increasing financial penalties and toughening community sentences with the rigorous new standards that we have introduced.
New clause 14 would reintroduce judicial punishment. I have given good, practical reasons why we cannot accept that, without entering into philosophical arguments about deterrence. That and the Isle of Man case are separate from the use of corporal punishment in schools or in the home. I do not want to be drawn into discussing those contentious issues because they are outside the scope of the debate. I emphasise that a parent correcting a child with a smack as an immediate response to misbehaviour is wholly different from a court, perhaps many months after the event, ordering a flogging.
As there is no prospect of corporal punishment being restored—even if it was, I see no prospect of judges ordering judicial flogging instead of any of the available penalties—we should not whistle in the wind for something that will not happen. We must make our range of penalties tough and punitive. The prospect of a long spell in prison is likely to be a highly effective deterrent. We can already see the success of our "Prison Works" policy, which will take out of circulation many of the persistent and dangerous criminals whom my hon. Friends abhor. I commend that course of action to them and, with the greatest respect, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that I cannot accept his new clause.

Mr. Michael: The Minister had a difficult row to hoe in responding to the debate, but he should not have misrepresented our position on the Bill. We have made it clear that we want consistency and progression of sentencing in our courts so that appropriate sentences are given, particularly to repeat offenders. We have explained the best methods to achieve that, especially in Monday's speech by the shadow Home Secretary.
New clause 14 is a diversion from the serious debates in which we have been seeking to make the Bill more effective and improve its consistency. We will return to some of those important issues when this new clause has been dealt with. The Minister rightly referred to it as whistling in the wind. We oppose it and will vote against it, if it is put to a vote.

Mr. Marlow: By leave of the House, I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister, particularly for the massive and good work that he is doing in his current job. Although his arguments might convince a minority in this House, beyond the Home Office insiders and professionals, he would not begin to have an audience outside it. He said that the prospect of


prison is a deterrent, but it manifestly is not for the people for whom corporal punishment would be appropriate. Violence, hooliganism, vandalism, graffiti and the mugging of old ladies are going on apace and are increasing day by day. Prison is there as a deterrent, but it is not working and we need something else.
My right hon. Friend the Minister made several arguments. First, the European convention on human rights is not supported by and is not an acceptable argument to Conservative Members. It has to go. We have a Government in our own country and we have to decide in our own Parliament. We ran the affairs of a third of the world until 30 or 40 years ago. Surely we are allowed to govern ourselves now. Cannot we make our own decisions? We are a mature democracy.
Secondly, the Minister said that it would be months before sentences were carried out. That is not an argument against corporal punishment but against the judicial system. Vandals and hooligans should be in court on Tuesday and punished on Wednesday; if they do it again on Thursday, they should be back on Friday.
My right hon. Friend knows in his heart and in his bones that there is a massive problem out there. He is doing what he can, but the new clause is a weapon that we could use. If he is uncertain whether it will be successful, we could use it for a trial period and suck it and see.
My right hon. Friend has listened to the arguments and we have had a good debate. It is my intention—the large number of my colleagues in the House reveals that it is also their intention—to give the subject an airing. It is time that we started to fight back and moved to defend the people who are suffering. We are all right; we have a privileged life style, but many of our constituents are suffering and we are not doing enough to help them.
I see no purpose in pushing the new clause to a vote, but this is the beginning and its time will come.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR SECOND SERIOUS OFFENCE

Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'that' to end of line 18 and insert
'it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
'or, where the offence is an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the court is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.
No. 32, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which would otherwise fall to be imposed under section 1(2) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing a life sentence.'.
No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out from 'that' to end of line 43 and insert

'it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.
No. 33, in page 3, line 6, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which would otherwise fall to be imposed under section 2(2) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing a custodial sentence for a term of at least seven years.'.
No. 8, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out from 'that' to end of line 32 and insert
'it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.
No. 34, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which would otherwise fall to be imposed under section 3(2) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing a custodial sentence for a term of at least three years.'.
No. 35, in schedule 4, page 60, leave out lines 2 to 10.

Mr. Llwyd: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and the lead amendment, amendment No. 6, which are principally the same. I am privileged to have had the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who is an experienced criminal Queen's Counsel, and the support of the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who has been a Home Office Minister with direct responsibility for prisons. That is an example of cross-party co-operation on one of the most important sections of the Bill.
The amendments widen the circumstances in which the courts may pass sentences—other than automatic life sentences under clause 1 and the minimum sentences of seven and three years under clauses 2 and 3 respectively. Courts would not have to find "exceptional circumstances" in order to depart from the mandatory or minimum sentence, but would be able to pass another sentence if it would be in the interests of justice to do so. The effect would be to provide for presumptive sentences rather than automatic or mandatory sentences in the circumstances covered by the clauses. The amendments propose a formulation similar to that proposed by Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, in a recent interview on the Frost programme in November 1996.
Clause 1 requires courts to impose automatic life sentences on those who are twice convicted of certain serious violent or sexual offences. Of course, I have no truck with those criminals, but requiring courts to pass automatic life sentences on all serious repeat offenders in all but exceptional circumstances would be unjust. Judges already have the discretionary power to pass life sentences for serious violent and sexual offences when the gravity of the crime or the dangerousness of the offender justifies it.
To require courts to pass life sentences in cases which they consider deserve fixed sentences seems to contravene the fundamental principles of justice. Unlike a mandatory life sentence, fixed sentences reflect an individual assessment of the case and of the offender's just deserts. The provision to allow departures from the mandatory sentence only in exceptional circumstances will do little to mitigate that injustice. In Committee, the Minister was unable to refer to any example of an exceptional


circumstance, save that of assisting the police, to which the Home Secretary referred in the Second Reading debate. That is not good enough.
The circumstances of offences within the categories vary greatly. The White Paper, "Protecting the Public," published in 1996, observed that of the 3,121 people convicted of such offences in 1994, 65 per cent. received custodial sentences. That means that 35 per cent. of the cases were regarded by the courts as not meriting custody when the full circumstances of the offence and the offender were taken into account. Yet the Bill proposes that such offences would trigger an automatic life sentence.
The White Paper further, and rightly, acknowledged that
long sentences are frequently imposed on offenders convicted of violent and sex offences".
However, it argued that the proposal would increase public safety for two reasons. First, it stated that determinate sentences mean that
the offender must be released once that sentence has been served, even if there is every reason to believe that he or she will commit further serious offences".
When life sentences are passed, however,
before potentially dangerous offenders are released an assessment must be made to see whether they still pose a risk".
Secondly, it stated that an offender released from a life sentence
will remain on licence and subject to recall for the rest of his or her life".
However, the courts can already pass life sentences on such offenders if they consider that the seriousness of the offence or the dangerousness of the offender justifies it.
The White Paper referred critically to the fact that 10 of the 217 offenders convicted of a second serious violent or sexual offence in 1994 received discretionary life sentences. That point was reiterated by the Home Secretary in his statement on the White Paper in the House on 3 April 1996. Yet it is the Attorney-General who has the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal where it is considered that the sentence was unduly lenient. He referred only six of the 207 cases in which determinate sentences were passed. It therefore seems surprising that the Home Secretary should argue that the courts' sentencing in such cases is inadequate when his fellow Minister, the Attorney-General, evidently considers that that is so in only a small fraction of cases.

Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Attorney-General can refer a case as being lenient only if it stands out from the generality of similar cases in the leniency of the sentence given? There are hundreds of cases on which the Court of Appeal has determined—and which are within the sentencing framework—where it is not possible for the Attorney-General to refer them, and only the House can decide whether the generality of cases is too serious or too lenient.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister raises a serious point and I agree with him to a certain extent; the mechanism by which the case initially comes to the Attorney-General's attention is questionable. Surely, what the Minister and

I have said constitute reasonable arguments for increasing the number of Attorney-General's staff and for having a better and statutory form of supervision and research into the various sentences being handed down. Perhaps the system needs changing—I know not. At present, it is not adequate and does not seem to work.
The matter was referred to in a lengthy article in The Times of 26 November 1996, which stated that in regard to the annual total of references by the Attorney-General there were 26 in 1990 and 81 in 1995. Most of those references were for grievous bodily harm and robbery—22 and 26 per cent. respectively. Curiously, and interestingly, rape came in a poor fourth or fifth—at 11 per cent. It is important to consider that subject. I agree with the Minister to a certain extent that perhaps it would be reasonable for the set-up for initially referring matters to the Attorney-General to be changed; he cannot be expected to do everything with the staff available to him.
In serious cases which do not attract a life sentence, offenders normally receive long fixed sentences. Those are followed by lengthy periods of supervision on licence from which the offender can be recalled at any time if his behaviour causes concern. Those arrangements provide substantial public protection. If a serious repeat offence occurs we should ask why, if re-offending was genuinely predictable, the power of recall to prison was not used. If it was not predictable, even with an automatic life sentence the Parole Board might well have decided in favour of release with no consideration given to recalling the offender.
Automatic life sentences could actually weaken public protection by increasing the risk of wrongful acquittals. In an interesting speech at King's college, London on 6 March last year, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, commented:
Minimum sentences are incompatible with an existing and important strand in our criminal law. The courts have long followed a policy of discounting sentences for timely pleas of guilty … Defendants who know they will receive a mandatory sentence of lengthy imprisonment, and even more so, a mandatory life sentence, are not likely to plead guilty.
Similar comments made in The Times of 12 March 1996 by Helena Kennedy QC have already been referred to, so I shall not quote them again.
In addition to an increase in not guilty pleas, with attendant delays in the courts and probable increased distress to victims who have to give evidence, the prospect of an automatic life sentence will undoubtedly deter some victims and witnesses from giving evidence against the offender. That is an important point and one that was raised on Second Reading by a senior Member of Parliament on the Government Benches, who knew what he was talking about.
Similar considerations apply in cases of domestic violence. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said:
grievous bodily harm with intent is not uncommon in a domestic context … Would the family be prepared to give evidence if life imprisonment were the consequence?"—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 952.]
That is an important point, which we should all ponder carefully.
The mandatory life sentence will provide an incentive for a greater use of plea bargaining so as to avoid such problems—for example, agreements to accept a plea of


guilty to indecent assault in a rape case, or to accept a guilty plea to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in a case of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Such downgrading of offences can cause great distress to victims, who cannot accept or, indeed, understand the justice of, for example, accepting a plea of guilty to indecent assault when a rape has taken place.
The Bill provides that the court would have discretion not to pass the automatic life sentence in the exceptional circumstances to which I have referred and which we were unable to obtain from the Government during the whole of the Committee stage, with the exception of a single example, to which I have also referred. However, the White Paper emphasised that that provision would apply only to "occasional quite unforeseeable circumstances".
The Government reached the correct conclusion on the issue of mandatory sentencing in their earlier White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", which was published in 1990. It stated:
The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework, on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional cases.
With regard to minimum sentences, clause 2 requires courts to impose mandatory minimum sentences of seven years on offenders convicted of trafficking in class A drugs. I have not a shred of sympathy for people who peddle drugs—they deserve everything they get. Clause 3 provides a minimum sentence of three years for offenders convicted of domestic burglary if they have had two or more previous convictions for similar offences. Here, again, the court would have discretion not to pass the mandatory minimum sentence if there were "exceptional circumstances". However, the White Paper emphasised that:
it will certainly not be open to the courts to set aside the mandatory sentence merely because it is higher than the sentence they would otherwise have been minded to impose.
In other words, the court could not pass a lesser sentence simply because it considered that to impose the minimum length of sentence would be unjust.
I believe that that is a highly objectionable proposal. At present, the main statutory principle governing sentencing is that sentences should be proportionate to the seriousness of the particular offence. To require the imposition of minimum sentences, whatever the circumstances, will prevent courts from achieving proportionality and justice in sentencing. As Lord Taylor commented on 12 October 1995 in a statement on the Home Secretary's speech at the 1995 Conservative party conference:
Judges … must be free to fit the particular punishment to the particular crime if justice is to be done. Minimum sentences are inconsistent with doing justice according to the circumstances of each case.
The seven-year minimum sentence will apply not only to the repeat offender who directs large-scale trafficking, but to the small-time addict sharing drugs with those in a similarly dire position. As Lord Taylor said in another place, the proposal
will simply fill our prisons with addicts who sell small quantities to support their own addiction."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1996; Vol. 572, c. 1026.]
The three-year minimum sentence for repeat burglars will apply not only to the professional burglar against whom, I am sure, the measure is aimed, but to the drunken

opportunist offender and the inadequate youngster, whose amateurish attempts at burglary are bound up with a range of problems that could best be tackled by an intensive probation programme.
As the right hon. Member for Fareham—from whom, no doubt, we shall hear later and I look forward to hearing his contribution—said last year:
there will be quite a few cases where such sentences will be visibly unjust and counter-productive.
For example, young drug addicts who sell small quantities of drugs to other addicts will get the same sentence as professional drug pushers … The same applies to opportunistic inadequates stealing from the homes of other people getting similar sentences as career housebreakers".—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 908.]
I know that other hon. Members on both sides of the House share my concerns about this aspect of the Bill.
The proposals will not only cause injustice, but will have a range of practical ill-effects. For example, they will damage intelligence gathering about drug trafficking operations because small-scale user-dealers will have little incentive to co-operate with the police in helping to build a case against major traffickers if the seven-year minimum sentence prevents courts from reflecting that co-operation in a reduced sentence.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary argued that that sort of assistance would fall within the definition of "exceptional circumstances". However, co-operation with the police does not amount to what the White Paper called "quite unforeseeable circumstances" because it is neither unusual nor unforeseeable. Even if the court were to regard it as an exceptional circumstance, the Bill would require the judge to give his or her reasons for a reduced sentence in open court. That could put the informant at serious risk and thereby destroy any incentive to co-operate and it would put out an entirely wrong message to individuals in a similar position.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided that courts could pass suspended sentences only if there were "exceptional circumstances". The Court of Appeal has interpreted that provision very narrowly. As Lord Bingham, the present Lord Chief Justice, said on "Breakfast with Frost" on 10 November 1996:
In a very closely related context the courts have had to construe this exception recently and they have done what Parliament intended and they have put a narrow construction on it. They have treated psychiatric problems, financial pressures, family difficulties and threats of suicide as not being exceptional. In the run of criminal cases, these kinds of explanations are coming up all the time and so a judge is going to have to, to be true to the intentions of Parliament, put his hand on his heart and say 'Is this exceptional?' and usually it will not be.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that a combination of factors which in themselves are features common to many cases—youth, an early plea, provocation, mental breakdown—does not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a suspended sentence.
I return to what the right hon. Member for Fareham said on 28 October:
It will not be sufficient to allow judges discretion just in cases where there are exceptional circumstances, as the Bill presently does. The problem will come with cases in which a"—
I cannot read the next word—

Sir Peter Lloyd: Concatenation.

Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; he remembers his speech better than I can read it out. To continue:
a concatenation of ordinary factors makes the mandatory sentence the wrong one. The court will be left with no option but to pass it."—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol.284, c. 365–6.]

7 pm

Mr. Michael: English being the hon. Gentleman's second language does not help.

Mr. Llwyd: It certainly makes matters more difficult, but one tries.
Mandatory sentences also often prevent courts from passing the sentence most likely to prevent reoffending. An increasing number of burglaries are driven by the need to feed a drug habit. A survey done in March 1996 by the Cleveland probation service of a wide sample of offenders convicted of three or more burglaries found that 36 per cent. of them had serious drug problems. Often this underlying factor does not become evident until after an offender has been convicted on a number of occasions. When such an offender is willing to co-operate with a probation order, combined with participation in a drug rehabilitation programme, that is much more likely than imprisonment to prevent further offending. But if a mandatory prison sentence is in operation, the court is forbidden to use the alternative option.
Although courts would have the power not to impose the minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances, these situations, I submit, are far from exceptional.
It has been argued that minimum sentences for repeat burglars are necessary because there is not enough progression in the sentences currently passed on those with previous convictions. But the figures cited in the White Paper showed considerable progression in sentencing. A sample of domestic burglars sentenced in 1993-94 showed that 59 per cent. of those sentenced at Crown courts received custodial sentences on a first conviction, 71 per cent. on a second conviction, and 75 per cent. on a third or subsequent conviction. The percentages at magistrates courts were roughly similar: 15 per cent., 27 per cent. and 36 per cent., respectively.
The conclusion that I inevitably draw is that, by giving the courts a wider discretion to depart from the mandatory or minimum sentence when the interests of justice require that, the amendments would greatly reduce the injustice that would result from clauses 1 to 3—as well as reducing the extent to which those clauses would deter offenders from pleading guilty or co-operating with the police. I therefore commend the amendments to the House and ask hon. Members to support them in the Lobby later.
I do not often pray in aid the other place, but many people there are highly qualified lifelong practitioners in the judicial system. I am sure that they will bring the necessary pressure to bear to enable common sense ultimately to prevail with respect to these clauses.

Sir Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has made a compelling argument this evening. I congratulate him on that and on tabling amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I had the same intention myself, but he beat me to it. I am therefore happy to add my name to his and to that of the hon. and learned

Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I believe it essential that the Bill eventually be changed along these lines.
Before I say why, I should also like to pay tribute to the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, although that is probably the last thing they are expecting at this moment. It is significant to note that these important and necessary amendments were tabled not by Labour Front Benchers but by a Back Bencher. That shows with revealing clarity how far my right hon. Friends have rendered the Opposition leadership terrified of appearing soft on crime. From opposing everything that the Government did to deal more effectively with crime, the Opposition have moved to accepting almost everything—even when the Government's zeal plainly carries them beyond wisdom or justice.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Sir Peter Lloyd: I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman should not cloud his attack on the Minister by attacking the Opposition too. He knows full well that we have dealt seriously with this and every other issue in the Bill pertaining to law and order, to try to produce what is effective and not just to oppose for the sake of opposition. We have sought to amend and to improve so as to achieve consistency and progression in sentencing.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that, but it was instructive to read the Committee proceedings, where the hon. Gentleman led for the Opposition. He probed and questioned and—as he would put it himself—teased; but what he said was not really very constructive. I realise that he was deploying his considerable skills in following instructions from his party superiors, to the effect that he must on no account be quotably out-toughed by the Tories.
Perhaps I do the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and his fellow spokesmen an injustice, however. Perhaps in Committee he was merely biding his time. Maybe he passed amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy out of the kindness of his heart. Perhaps in a moment he will give those amendments such a ringing endorsement that his party colleagues will emerge from the Tea Room or the Library, or wherever they are—they are certainly not in the Chamber—and surge through the Lobby in support of the amendments: we shall see.
I do not want to amend clause 1, unlike the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy by means of amendment No. 6, or even the Opposition by means of amendment No. 1. Clause 1 introduces life sentences where the judge himself decides the minimum tariff. I shall confine my remarks to clauses 2 and 3 and mandatory sentences for drug trafficking and burglary, because it is here that real injustice will inevitably arise.
There may not be many cases when the interests of justice will not be served by the mandatory sentences introduced in the Bill, but there will be enough of them to bring the new arrangements into disrepute—just as the system of unit fines was brought into disrepute by a small number of cases where the courts had to impose fines


which they knew were ludicrous. Plainly the Government now accept that the courts must have some discretion as to whether to impose mandatory sentences. They would not otherwise have included the phrase
unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so.
The trouble is, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy pointed out, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) argued in Committee from the vantage point of a distinguished recorder, that those words do not give the judges very clear guidance to follow. There will be exceptional circumstances, as the Government acknowledge, when a less harsh penalty is needed; but there will be others when a mandatory sentence will be equally or even more unjust or counterproductive. The circumstances, however, will be far from exceptional; they will be all too banal and ordinary: the youth of the offender, his mental health, the occasion in question, the nature of the crime. All these coming together—hence the reference to concatenation—will make the mandatory sentence the wrong one, but no particular aspect of the case will be exceptional.
I shall not take up the time of the House by giving examples—I have done that in earlier debates. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was kind enough to repeat some of them and to add some more of his own. It is easy to think them up, just as it is easy to dismiss them as contrived, but the trouble with such contrivances is that they occur from time to time. It will not serve justice and the public's respect for the law's firm application to put a judge in a position where the mandatory sentence is plainly wrong but he must pass it, unless he can descry circumstances that make it exceptional—but not if they make it simply unjust.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton argued forcefully that, not being given a clear form of words, the judges will interpret them broadly—in effect recreating, in large measure, the discretion that the Bill is designed to remove. He hopes that he is wrong. It appears that the Lord Chief Justice thinks that he is, as he has said that he expects the court to interpret exceptional circumstances narrowly. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he thought so too, a decisive reaction on his part as the courts seeking guidance as to Parliament's intention will no doubt construe his words accordingly.
"Quite right" say the enthusiasts—including some of my hon. Friends, who happen not to be here—for clauses 2 and 3. A few sentences may be heavier than justice might otherwise require, but that must be balanced against the benefit to society in that mandatory sentences will deter far more effectively, so there will be less burglary and less drug trafficking, with the essential corollary that that deterrent effect will be nullified if the court, in its wisdom, is allowed to substitute a lesser sentence on those occasions where the needs of justice require it.
I know of no convincing evidence, commonsensical or statistical, to support that view. The interesting articles by Charles Murray in The Sunday Times, under headlines suggesting that more prison was always the answer, did not. He appeared to say that the essential ingredients that had been lacking in the UK to reduce crime were detection and prosecution. He also said, very relevantly to this debate, no doubt to the disappointment of some of my hon. Friends—and certainly to my surprise—that UK

judges were just as likely to send to prison people appearing before them now as they were in the stern old days of 1954, after which, he said, it all began to go wrong.
Nevertheless the statistics that emerged with the White Paper and the Bill showing that repeat offenders suffer penalties little harsher than first timers, do prompt questions about the justice and good sense of current sentencing practice. "May" is the operative word here. Those statistics may conceal more than they reveal. The courts may not be being inconsistent. They may be making wholly justified distinctions between cases, which are obscured by averages.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton suggested, and he is well-placed to know, that some judges are firm and coherent sentencers but others are not. Before passing a Bill such as this, we should have had a much more comprehensive and objective picture of sentencing as it is currently practised and of sentencing's relationship with deterrence and rehabilitation. We should have had a fully fledged inquiry on this crucial issue, which could absorb the Charles Murray findings and other research, and which could commission others to fill the gaps.
Meanwhile, it seems that judges do not work to any comprehensive guidance from the senior judiciary—at least there is no such guidance on burglary—as they do for some of the more serious crimes. If that is so, it is a grave lack. There should be guidelines and they should be accessible to anyone who is prepared to take reasonable time and trouble to find them out. Sentencing should not be a mystery to which only the few are admitted.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to add to what was said on Monday and tell us what the position is, but it looks to the layman as if the judges had been slow to respond to public disquiet. However, it also looks as if the Government were keen to legislate before the judiciary had managed to show either that all is as it should be, despite appearances, or that the senior judiciary is willing and able to produce new guidance that would meet the shortcomings that have been revealed. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will not simply say that the amendments enabling the courts to substitute another sentence for the mandatory ones when the interests of justice require it will drive a coach and horses through the Bill, because they will not. The amendments would still mean that the courts are generally expected to impose the mandatory sentence.

Mr. Maclean: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has studied the transcript of the Lord Chief Justice's comments on "The Frost Programme", when he was asked what the effect would be of any amendment to substitute the present words with words such as, "according to the justice of case". He said that it would enable the judge to avoid passing a mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I was aware of those words. It shows that it is difficult to find the right ones. The Government have not done so. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who moved the amendment, might not have found the right ones, but I am sure that, before the matter returns to the House from the Lords, even if we do not make a change here, the right ones need to be found because the present ones are simply not satisfactory.
The Lord Chief Justice was not as confident in his own form of words as perhaps he should be because the form of words on the amendment paper would still mean that the courts—this is the way in which the Bill is constructed and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, if he reconsiders it, will find that that is so—would generally be expected to impose the mandatory sentence. They would be able to substitute a lesser one only when the judge had explained why that lesser sentence was necessary in the interests of justice. It will have to be the mandatory sentence, unless there are good reasons why not. Those reasons will no doubt be subject to guidance from the Lord Chief Justice and—this is an extra point that is not in the amendments—the prosecution should be able to appeal against them if they find them unacceptable. Far from a retreat, the Government should regard that as giving them a victory on all the essential points, while enabling them to avoid the injustices that the Bill's present wording will certainly produce.
If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is just going to reject the amendments without the qualification that the Government will reconsider, especially in another place, he will be saying that, in these particular cases, he does not want the courts to take the needs of justice into account. Inevitably, with mandatory sentences, he will, in practice, be writing occasional injustice into the law.
If nevertheless, as I say, the House does not accept the amendments, I hope that another place will give us a second chance. For some of the reasons that I have already given, in a way that would be better. Their Lordships may find a form of words that more effectively meets the needs of justice without frightening the Government that nothing will be changed. Their Lordships should certainly be able to illuminate sentencing practice and show how it can be improved not just for offences that attract mandatory sentences, but for the whole range.
It would be doubly satisfactory if these amendments were first made in the other place. The Labour party would see the undemocratic second Chamber that it wants to replace doing the Opposition's proper job for them, while the Government, who want to preserve the present Lords as a revising Chamber, are obliged to benefit from its revisions. Perhaps that is our subtle Home Secretary's grand design: to demonstrate the usefulness of the other place as it is presently constituted while giving a powerful incentive to the judiciary to turn its collective mind more thoroughly to matters of sentencing, which worry, rightly, many people, so enabling him to accept gracefully a suitable amendment there, "exceptional circumstances" having served its purpose as a catalyst.

Mr. Beith: I have rarely heard a complex case deployed so brilliantly in the House as it has been by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), after the amendment was competently and ably moved by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). The amendments go to the heart of the Bill. I will deal with the general principles that they raise, but first I want to refer to amendments Nos. 32 to 35.
Those amendments, tabled by Liberal Democrats, are designed to enable the courts to pass mental health disposals on mentally disordered offenders who would

otherwise have to be given automatic life sentences under clause 1, or mandatory minimum sentences under clauses 2 and 3. At present, when a court is satisfied that an offender is suffering from a mental disorder falling within the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, it can make a hospital order, if appropriate combining that with a restriction or guardianship order. Those options are ruled out by the Bill.
Mental disorder could not be interpreted automatically as amounting to an exceptional circumstance. It is just possible that the Minister thinks that it could be treated as such a circumstance; I hope that in due course he will say whether he thinks that it should automatically be regarded in that way, or whether a court could in any appropriate set of circumstances regard it as such. I consider this a pretty far-reaching use of the word "exceptional", and I think that a court would find it difficult to apply such an interpretation. I therefore proceed on the assumption that, other than in a case that is itself exceptional even within that category, the option is ruled out.
The Home Office and Department of Health guidance document entitled "Mentally Disordered Offenders: Inter-Agency Working", published in 1995, states:
Detention in prison is likely to be damaging to the mental health of a mentally disordered person, and the Prison Service is not equipped to provide treatment equivalent to that available in hospital.
I ask the Minister to talk to prison officers about the problems that they now experience with people whom they believe to suffer from mental disorder who ought to be in hospitals rather than prisons. The task of running a prison and providing a regime that will rehabilitate at least some offenders is made immensely difficult when—as seems to be the case now—an increasing proportion of those offenders are suffering from mental disorder, and that increase will be very much greater if the court does not have the option to take the mental health route in circumstances such as those that I have described.
According to a briefing prepared by the Law Society's mental health and disability sub-committee, in conjunction with the Royal College of Psychiatrists,
While the Committee agrees that the public needs protection against persistent offenders, it believes that this will not be achieved by sending mentally disordered offenders to prison for a minimum of three years. Indeed, imprisonment is likely to have the opposite effect, since the mental health of the offender is likely to deteriorate while in prison, before being released untreated and unsupported into the community … Those mentally disordered prisoners who are eventually released are more likely to continue to pose a risk to the public, since their disorder may well have remained untreated during their imprisonment and it will prove far more difficult to ensure continuity of effective care from prison to the community, than from hospital to the community.
We all know how difficult it is proving, within the community care programme, to cater for mentally disordered people with a tendency to commit offences who are now at large in the community. If such people are released from prison without treatment and without follow-up from mental hospitals, there will be even more of a problem.
It is feared that hospital orders made under the Mental Health Act would be inadequate to protect the public from some mentally disordered offenders. I presume that that is why the Government are closing off that option. It is worth emphasising, however, that in practice most offenders who are given hospital orders combined with


restriction orders are kept in hospital for longer than they would have spent in prison. They are kept "out of harm's way", as the Home Secretary might like to think of it, and will not be able to commit offences for longer than would be the case if they received prison sentences.
A restriction order can be made when the court considers it necessary to protect the public from serious harm. Most restriction orders are made without time limits: they subject the offender to indeterminate detention. Decisions on release are made by a mental health review tribunal, and the patient is discharged under conditions that entail permanent liability to recall to hospital. All that gives the public much more stringent protection than is available under the mandatory sentence procedure. The procedures are similar in effect to a discretionary life sentence, but they require detention in a mental hospital rather than in prison.
To remove the court's discretion to pass an order ensuring that a mentally disordered offender receives the care and treatment that he or she needs is surely unacceptable. The amendments would retain that discretion, enabling the court to consider alternative disposals more suited to the needs of mentally disordered offenders, which in the long term are likely to protect the public more effectively. If the Home Secretary's watchword is that he is doing all this to protect the public, in the case of mentally disordered people he ought to take a route that is likely to provide that protection.
Let me turn to the wider issues raised by amendment No. 6. It would insert the words
in the interests of justice".
The arguments advanced so far are very persuasive—for example, the argument that unless that wording is included far more guilty people could be acquitted, and the argument that the abandonment of the parole system, with its system of automatic recall, will seriously undermine the protection of the public. I believe that the Bill's provisions have a more political than penal purpose, and that the Government do not seriously intend them to be carried out. If those provisions are passed unamended, the number of people committed to prison, and the time for which they are committed, will be such as to require—according to the Government's own estimate—the building of 12 new prisons, with 11,000 more prisoners. Other estimates are much higher.
There is no provision in Government finances for the building of those prisons. There is provision for the building of eight other new prisons, but they are intended to deal with existing overcrowding rather than the effects of the Bill.
The provisions will not come into effect fully for 12 years. That, too, is stated in the Bill's financial memorandum. The Government seek to convince the House that, unless the Bill is passed unamended—without amendments such as amendment No. 6—the public will be denied the immediate protection that they would secure from the commitment of large numbers of people to prison very soon, but that is simply not the case. If the Bill's provisions were implemented at all, it would be over an extremely long period. The fact that, without an amendment of this kind, the Bill would require so many prison places is an admission that the Government do not believe that it will deter crime. Far from keeping people out of prison because they do not commit crimes, it will

lead to the admission of many more prisoners. That in itself constitutes an acceptance that the measures will fail to achieve their supposed purpose.
If the measures were real and serious in their intent, there would have to be a huge reduction in the funds available for other Home Office functions, particularly those relating to policing and crime prevention. I know of no Minister who has gone on record as saying that he is prepared to sacrifice £1 billion or more from funds for his departmental programmes to provide for those functions, and I know of no indication from the Treasury that it has found resources elsewhere for the purpose. The money is bound to come from somewhere in the Home Office budget. If the courts do not have discretion to apply sensible sentences and are trapped in the mandatory system, the effect on policing and crime prevention will allow many more crimes to be committed, thus weakening protection of the public.
Labour's apparent support for this part of the Bill, and its unwillingness to amend it, imply a similar commitment to the expenditure of substantial resources. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has to say about that. He is supposed to have enjoined all his Front-Bench spokesmen not to make spending commitments, but there is a huge spending commitment at the heart of the Bill.
As I understand it, by not objecting to the mandatory sentence principle and not supporting the kind of amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), Labour is also accepting built-in injustice in the sentencing system. The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to ensure that the courts can take into account justice in the passing of sentences. If we deny them that power, we accept that unjust sentences will be passed, because the circumstances are not sufficiently exceptional. I do not know how the Labour party can stand by that principle, but it appears to be doing so.
It is vital that an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 6 is included in the Bill. I endorse what others have said: if this House does not do it, it will have to be done in another place. I also ask the Minister, however, to look carefully at the points about mentally disordered convicted persons which I made earlier.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not want to take up the time of the House repeating the argument on this matter—to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) referred—that I made in Committee, but we are no further forward than we were then. I agree with hon. Members who have suggested that this matter is a very important part of the Bill. The heart and soul of the Bill is minimum sentences, and the issue we are debating is whether judges have a large or narrow gate to pass through if they want to avoid the consequences of minimum sentences.
In this debate, we are talking about whether the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is better than the phrase "in the interests of justice". The answer depends on the point of view with which one begins. If I were a judge, pure and simple, and shared the views of the previous Lord Chief Justice and some other senior judges, I might feel very distressed at the thought that my judicial discretion had been curbed in this manner, and I should like as big a gate as possible to avoid the consequences of minimum


sentences. However, I am a politician. As I have spent more time in the past 23 years in the practice of politics than in practice in the courts, I hope that I am more a politician than I am a lawyer.
My experience in politics tells me that the Government are right to introduce minimum sentences, and that they are reflecting the wishes of the people. The people have a right to have their wishes respected, and they have said that the sentences that the courts have been apt to pass on persistent professional offenders—whether they are drug traffickers, burglars or violent criminals—have been inadequate to protect them.
Therefore, I approach the matter in a manner different from that of some senior judges and judges—although not all senior judges, and certainly not all judges. We must provide as small an opportunity as we can for judges to brush away the Bill's provision of minimum sentences, which I anticipate that the House should like to pass into law. The question is whether we should provide a big or a small gate through which exceptions may pass.
In Committee, I expressed the view, which I shall not repeat in detail, that "exceptional circumstances" was still too vague a term, without elaboration, for judges to understand its meaning. More importantly, it is too vague for villains to understand that the commission of a third burglary or drug offence, or a second rape or serious violent offence, will lead to certain consequences. I expressed that view even after attempting to consider the matter through the eyes of the Government and through the eyes of those of us who support the Government's view that the minimum sentences provisions are vital, and that there should be as little opportunity of avoiding them as possible.
I am a believer in deterrence. I believe that the certainty of consequences is important, and that we would be making a mistake if villains thought that there was sufficient possibility of avoiding the consequences of a three-years, seven-years or life sentence.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman did not stop my train of thought now, because I am not reading from notes, and I cannot return to a previous note. In a moment, I will of course give him an opportunity to intervene.
I am concerned that we provide sufficient guidance for villains and deter them by letting them know in advance the consequences of their second or third wrong action. As a recorder, I am also concerned that I should know—when I have to apply it—the meaning of "exceptional circumstances". In practice, with time, judges and the Court of Appeal will establish guidelines on the meaning of "exceptional circumstances", because they will have to.
When we direct a jury, we will have to open our red book and state what we mean by "exceptional circumstances", because the jury may also want to decide whether the case's circumstances are such that they should convict. The issue of "exceptional circumstances", however, must be dealt with by the sentencer; lack of clarity is no help to the sentencer.
Goodness knows how long it will take judges to work out the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" or—if we change the phrase—"the interests of justice". Meanwhile, while confusion remains in the minds of the judges, the Bill's purpose may not always be effected.
I had hoped that, between Committee stage and today, my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would have consulted senior judges, and particularly the Lord Chief Justice. Once the Lord Chief Justice had been convinced that the Government knew their own mind and the intentions of Parliament, he would honourably help to fulfil those intentions. Perhaps we could have debated the proper meaning of the phrase "exceptional circumstances", or—had the Lord Chief Justice persuaded my right hon. and learned Friend that it was a better form of words—the phrase "the interests of justice" . But that has not happened, and we are none the wiser and not even better informed.
We will have to say to their Lordships in another place, "Please help yourselves and help to express the intention of Parliament, and therefore of the people, by suggesting a form of words that the Government can accept as realising Parliament's intention. We can then write it into the Act, and we will not have to go through the business of waiting, over many years, as guidelines are developed, during which time many villains may go on committing repeat offences because they are not certain that the consequences of minimum sentences will follow." So all is not lost, because the Bill still has another stage to go—during which time, hopefully, the most brilliant legal minds in the land will give their input.
I should tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I am as dissatisfied now, during this more advanced stage of the Bill's passage, as I was in Committee. If it is defined in a certain way, I do not think that "the interests of justice" will have any different effect from "exceptional circumstances". The meat is in how the phrases are defined. The substance will be in their Lordships accepting that it is the will and intention of the Government—with the support of the Opposition, and therefore with the support of the entire House of Commons—that we should introduce tough minimum sentences which more closely reflect the people's desire to deter villains. Unsatisfactory though the proposal is, it is not completely unsatisfactory. I only hope that the other place will not only assist the Government in carrying out the intentions of Parliament but clarify the law, so that there is no confusion in the courts or in the minds of villains.

Mr. Michael: Now that we are debating serious amendments, it is a pity that we no longer have with us a single one of the phantom soundbite warriors—the supporters of new clause 14—who did not even have the courage to vote on their spurious proposal. They are not interested in the serious business of scrutinising and improving legislation.
There have been some serious contributions to today's debate, not least that from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He has just made a thoughtful and considered speech, which the Minister should take seriously, as it builds on comments that he made in Committee.
We heard an entertaining speech from the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), for whom I have a great deal of respect. He was a good, hard-working


Minister, which is probably why he was sacked. However, I was a little sad that he today criticised the Opposition unkindly and unfairly. He is rather like the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd)—I have been provoked into making this point by something that the right hon. Member for Fareham said earlier—in that they talk tough and toe the line in government. The right hon. Member for Fareham was complicit in the massive increase in crime that has occurred under this Government—especially the increase in violent crime—and in the inconsistency of sentencing which we are now trying to tackle.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton that there is a cross-party wish to achieve more consistent sentencing. Indeed, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, who identified the fact that people who commit a second and third very serious offence are often no more likely to receive a longer or tougher sentence than they did on their first conviction. There is no sense in that. The emergence of the right hon. Members for Fareham and for Witney from the chrysalis of office and their being born again as radical reformers is damaged by their record in office.

Sir Peter Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Michael: Of course I shall allow the right hon. Gentleman to defend himself.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I just want to correct the hon. Gentleman on one small fact, although I do not suppose that he wants facts to spoil his flow. While I was the Minister responsible for prisons, reported crime fell. The point that I directed to him was that we are discussing important issues that go to the heart of the Bill, and that I hope that he will bring his party out in support of them and not leave it to others.

Mr. Michael: I am coming to the amendments, but the right hon. Gentleman indulged in some unjustified knockabout, and his comments require a response. There was a minimal fall in recorded crime, but that fall has been reversed in certain categories—violent crime, for instance. In any event, the right hon. Gentleman was talking about recorded crime. It is not the subject of this debate, but he cannot defend the Government's record, or even his period in office, by saying that the Government succeeded in tackling crime—they did not. The Government have an appalling record, and the Bill does little to recover any ground for them.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—

Mr. Beith: Right honourable.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—I beg his pardon before I get stuck in—was also self-indulgent. The fact is that the Liberal Democrats did not regard the subject as serious enough to want to participate in the Standing Committee. They are not so good at the hard work.
We did, however, have the company of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) from a minority party, and he made a significant contribution.

It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to criticise the Labour party and the Government on the Floor of the House in an attempt to look purer than pure, but, as he was not on the Committee, perhaps he should at least have the courtesy to read Hansard and see the constructive way in which we sought to debate the issues.

Mr. Llwyd: rose—

Mr. Michael: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who did participate constructively in the Committee.

Mr. Llwyd: I have not entered into any party political knockabout, because I believe the subject is too important. Far be it from me to defend the Liberal Democrats, but my place on the Committee was in effect given to me by them, as I asked for it. It was agreed that I, rather than a Liberal Democrat, should sit on the Committee. I say that to be fair.

Mr. Michael: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman sat on the Committee, as I was about to comment on the fact that there were serious contributions from members of all parties represented there. My point is that I am not going to accept knockabout comments from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed; I want to concentrate on the serious debate to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy contributed consistently in Committee, as did the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
We may not have agreed all the time, but the Committee was a good one, and the contributions by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman were consistent with what they have said today. Those who indulge in a bit of knockabout deserve to be put right. Now let me move on to the amendment.
We all want consistency from the courts, and, indeed, progression, which means that those who commit serious offences more than once receive a tougher penalty as a result. To balance that, we also want a mechanism that avoids the anomalies that can arise from very specific or mandatory sentences. We want Parliament to make its intentions clear, and something to protect against those anomalies.
The Government's method has been to set mandatory sentences. That was their position at the time of the White Paper, but—and they were right to do so—between that time and the publication of the Bill, they have accepted that they needed to shift their position, and came up with the phrase "exceptional circumstances". The problem is that their complete refusal to explain what it means has undermined the credibility of Bill's phrasing—a point made in Committee by members of all parties.
The Government have available to them the resources, parliamentary draftsmen and advisers to ensure that they get legislation right. We have been right—on Second Reading, in Committee and again today—to prompt the Government and make sure that they realise that they have not got it right yet. Of course, there is a way that they could move in the right direction.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that the real matter at issue is whether there should be a big or small gate for exceptions. We need to understand


Parliament's intentions, and the options are either better wording or an explanation of "special circumstances". The Pepper v. Hart judgment shows that the explanation of the intentions of Parliament is significant to the courts. That explanation has not been given.
As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said in his introductory remarks, the only example of an exceptional circumstance is that cited by the Home Secretary on Second Reading:
Sometimes, someone appearing before a court gives the police exceptional help, which enables them to bring a number of other serious criminals to justice. That would be an important factor, which I would regard as an exceptional circumstance justifying the passing of a sentence shorter than the minimum mandatory length."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 914—5.]
The trouble is that we have not moved on from there. The hon. and learned Member for Burton made clear the lack of progress in explaining that.
The one example that has been provided creates some difficulties. Co-operation with the police does not amount to what the White Paper described as "quite unforeseeable circumstances". It is neither unusual nor unforeseeable. Have the Government abandoned that definition? What is their definition? The Minister was challenged time and again in Committee at least to give illustrations, if he could not give a definition, to allow us to understand the Government's thinking, but that thinking remains opaque.
That single example also creates problems on the other side of the equation. Chief constables are unhappy with the one example given by the Home Secretary, because, even if giving the police special help were regarded by a court as an exceptional circumstance, the Bill would require the judge to give his reasons for a reduced sentence in open court. That could put the informant at serious risk, thereby destroying any incentive to co-operate.
How would the court get around that problem, except in the devious way suggested in Committee by the Minister? He may have reflected on those remarks, when he seemed to suggest that a court could more or less ignore the problem and dance around it. I hope that we shall have some clarification from the Minister today, because we have had none so far. I shall not labour the point further, because we brought it up time and again in Committee, and it was raised on Second Reading. I am beginning to despair of getting clarification from the Minister.
Amendment No. 1 addresses an important anomaly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the shadow Home Secretary, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on Second Reading, and by the hon. and learned Member for Burton and me in Committee.
The amendment provides that, in the case of offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the court should be able on a second conviction to pass a sentence other than life imprisonment if it considers that to be
in the interests of justice".
We are dealing only with that narrow group of offences, but the amendment would give the court wider discretion than the "exceptional circumstances" formulation to pass sentences other than life imprisonment for section 18 offences.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said:
The law relating to section 18 is wholly unsatisfactory, as the Law Commission has repeatedly pointed out; and the range of conduct covered by this section is extremely wide."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 930.]
We had an interesting debate in Committee, during which I reiterated our belief that that would lead to anomalies, and that the Minister had not sufficiently taken into account the danger of anomalies. From his experience in the courts, the hon. and learned Member for Burton reinforced my points strongly and constructively. He said that there was merit in the points that I had raised, and that, if the provisions covered all section 18 offences, a number of consequences would follow: first, an offender would be more likely to plead to a section 20 offence; secondly, the offender would be less likely to plead to a section 18 offence—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig); and thirdly that the inclusion of section 18 in all its width would make it more likely that the Crown Prosecution Service, in its discretion, would decide whether to prosecute under section 20 or section 18. In other words, people would be going round the intention of the law.
The hon. and learned Member concluded:
But we must give a little thought to how extensive is the arm with which we enforce the mandatory life sentence if, at the margin, it will do more harm than good to the system to implement it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 64.]
I call in aid the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Burton in saying that this important issue has still not been resolved.
In an offence under section 18, the wound can be any wound that breaks the skin, even a minor wound. A kick in the leg that draws blood counts as wounding, provided that there is deemed to be intent to cause grievous bodily harm or resist arrest.
Grievous bodily harm has been defined by the Court of Appeal in some cases, notably DPP v. Smith in 1961, as "really serious harm", but in other cases it has been defined as either "really serious harm" or "serious harm." A broken wrist, for example, could be regarded as serious harm. An offence under section 18 therefore need not necessarily involve the intention to cause serious bodily harm, but can involve wounding with intent to resist arrest. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said in that Committee debate, a section 18 offence could be knocking a person's tooth out.
The problem can be illustrated by a series of examples, but I do not intend to delay the House by recounting them. I hope that the Minister has given the matter some thought since the Committee debate, and has something positive to tell us or is willing to accept the amendment. The variety of offences under section 18 are all serious and involve violence, and many are very serious. However, many section 18 offences are at a different level of seriousness from offences such as homicide and rape. Even if the case for automatic life sentences for repeat offenders were accepted for those offences, a wider discretion for section 18 offences would be appropriate.
Only two days ago, the Minister asked us in a debate on a new clause not to devalue the currency when comparing the way in which we deal with violent offenders and sex offenders. We are in danger of devaluing the currency on the less serious section


18 offences. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) noted that
grievous bodily harm with intent is not uncommon in a domestic context",
and asked:
Would the family be prepared to give evidence if life imprisonment were the consequence?"—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 952.]
I have already referred to the greater reluctance to plead guilty to a section 18 offence, and the increased likelihood that the charges will be plea-bargained down to a lesser offence.
When we debated this issue in Committee, the Minister initially refused to acknowledge that section 18 offences could be anything other than very serious. He said:
Section 18 is used to prosecute the most appalling assaults committed by dangerous violent criminals. It is exactly these kinds of people from whom the public need protection and against whom the public will be better protected by an automatic life sentence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 65.]
We agree with him about the people he was describing, but not with the width of his description of what is prosecuted under section 18. That point was made strongly by the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
The Minister responded by arguing that different cases could be dealt with by variations in the length of the tariff that a life sentence prisoner must serve before being considered for release. Hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is more interested in waving and going home than in listening to the debate—should pay particular attention to the Minister's remarks. He said:
We should stick with the automatic life sentence for all those convicted of a second offence of grievous bodily harm and let judges reflect in the tariff, as at present they do for life sentences, their view of the person's culpability … I am not aware of a minimum or maximum being imposed on judges. I understand that they have complete discretion in imposing the tariff."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 66.]
He confirmed in later exchanges that the discretion was so wide that a life sentence could, in the setting of a tariff, turn into a three-month sentence, because there is no limit on the discretion available to the judge.
I clarified the Minister's remarks during that debate, when I explained:
The judge can give as light a sentence as he wants and still call it a life sentence. … he"—
the Minister—
tells us that a life sentence leaves the judge with such wide discretion that the words are virtually meaningless."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 68.]
That is surely unsatisfactory, as the objective of the Bill is supposed to be honesty in sentencing. It applies exclusively to section 18 offences, which is why amendment No. 1 is so important.
Surely it would be far more sensible to give the courts wider discretion to pass sentences other than life imprisonment in section 18 cases, so that the more serious offences that the Minister described in Committee would be dealt with in the way he suggests, and offences at the other end of the spectrum could also be dealt with appropriately, without ludicrously having to describe a much shorter sentence as a life sentence.

8 pm

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman said that that would put me right. He has not yet put me right on whether he is prepared to vote for amendment No. 6, or on whether, in believing that mandatory sentences are generally acceptable with only limited exceptions, he agrees with the expenditure of £3.6 billion on building new prisons that will be required, according to the Government's own estimates.

Mr. Michael: We shall come to Government expenditure in a later debate. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that it gets worse. Some of the Government's amendments increase the cost quite considerably. The Government are responsible for their own amendments to the Bill and for making sure that its clauses are accurate and clear. It would be ludicrous for the Bill to catch people it was not intended to catch. Amendment No. 1 seeks to clarify that anomaly in relation to section 18 offences.
There are a number of ways of addressing the wider aspects involved. One is for the Government to come clean about what is meant by "exceptional circumstances", so that there is sufficient clarity for the definition to apply in the courts and to be taken into account under Pepper v. Hart, or, alternatively, for the intention of the House of Commons to be clarified.
I was most surprised that the Government did not draft amendments to clarify the issue and respond to the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in Committee and on Report. The Minister may provide that clarification in his reply to this debate. I suspect that he will not, in which case the prediction of the hon. and learned Member for Burton that the issues will be addressed again in another place is far more likely to come true.
Amendment No. 1 deals with section 18 offences. It is surely far more sensible to give the courts wider discretion to pass sentences other than life imprisonment in that narrow range of offences. The amendment would retain a life sentence as the presumptive sentence on a second conviction for a section 18 offence, but it would give judges wider discretion to tailor sentences to the wide variations in the circumstances of section 18 offences.

Mr. Gary Waller: I shall make a brief speech warmly to endorse and pay tribute to the speeches of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). Interestingly, from a rather different perspective, I found myself in agreement with much of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
Back Benchers on both sides of the House have referred to the need to do justice. The Bill, by introducing mandatory life sentences and minimum sentences, will make it more difficult, rather than easier, to do justice. I agree with those who have said that the Bill needs to be amended if we are not to fall into the serious trap of going down that path.
Some time ago, I introduced a ten-minute Bill entitled Determinate Sentences for Murder. It attracted considerable support in the House. It would not have prevented judges from passing life sentences in many,


probably most, cases of murder—I am sure that a life sentence will be appropriate in some cases for which it will become mandatory under this Bill—but I feel that the Bill is moving in entirely the wrong direction.
I believe that, as it stands, the Bill will bring the law into disrepute. If we do not amend it, attacks on the state of the law will be emblazoned across the newspapers when manifestly unjust sentences are imposed because the judges have no alternative. If there are no adequate changes, I am sure that we shall have to return to the issue in the foreseeable future, just as the House found it necessary to do so soon after it introduced the regime of unit fines.
It is interesting that there has been something of a consensus about the current form of words in the Bill and those proposed in the amendments being unsatisfactory. I hope that some changes will be made before the House of Lords has done with the Bill.
Although the Opposition will not like me to say this, I regret the fact that, despite the strong reservations that must exist among their supporters, they decided to walk away from the issue. Those reservations are also felt by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom have expressed them elsewhere.
There is still an opportunity for us to pull back from the brink. I hope that the other place will enable us to do that, and believe that before we have done with the Bill we shall have some more interesting debates.

Mr. Maclean: This has been a fascinating debate. All the amendments concern circumstances in which a court may set aside the automatic life sentence for a second serious violent or sexual offence in clause I or the mandatory minimum custodial sentences for a third time class A drug trafficking or domestic burglary offence in clauses 2 and 3.
This is a vital issue that goes to the heart of the Bill. I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) on an outstandingly good speech. It is difficult for me to say so without sounding patronising, but I have heard many speeches over the years, and I felt that my right hon. Friend's speech tonight was one of his best ever. However, that does not necessarily mean that I found it entirely persuasive.
The view expressed by my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was straightforward, simple to understand and espoused a principle. They expressed a deep belief that the exceptional circumstances test is too narrow, and they wish it to be replaced with a justice of the case test. I understand that position, and in the next few minutes I shall explain why I disagree.
I was completely perplexed by the view of the Labour party on the issue and the long speech that we heard on an issue that is irrelevant to the principle—whether the grievous bodily harm test should be practically split in two, with much more serious offences at the top of the scale and lesser offences at the bottom of the scale. That is irrelevant to the issue of principle. One can only conclude that some of the darts that were placed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and some of the superb stilettos inserted by my right hon. Friend the

Member for Fareham, were true. I shall not intrude further on the Labour party's difficulty with supporting us, or opposing us, tonight. I assume that it will have to take the position that it took on Second Reading: to decide later on, perhaps nearer the election.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy would replace the exceptional circumstances test in clause 1 with a very different test. The test he proposes would allow the mandatory penalty to be set aside in any case where the trial judge took the view that it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would, similarly, replace the exceptional circumstances test in respect of the minimum sentences for drug traffickers and domestic burglars in clauses 2 and 3.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham perhaps knows me too well. He tried to head me off from saying that, if accepted, such a change would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I must say to him that it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. That is not only my view; I base it on the words of the Lord Chief Justice during an interview on "Breakfast with Frost". I shall quote his words exactly so I am not in error. One can only conclude after reading his interpretation of the interests of the justice of the case that the change would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I am not trying to pick on my right hon. and learned Friend; I am basing my judgment on the Lord Chief Justice's opinion.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He is not learned.

Mr. Maclean: I consider my right hon. Friend learned, although perhaps he is not in the House's technical sense.
The essence of mandatory penalties is that they should be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of cases. If they are not, they will not have the salutary effect that we intend and expect. There is no doubt that the amendments would substantially widen the discretion of the court not to impose the mandatory sentence.
The Lord Chief Justice recently said on "Breakfast with Frost"—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy quoted part of the interview—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not listening.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Lady is concerned that all rules should be punctiliously observed. She will therefore be aware that seated interventions are out of order.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it in order for Opposition Front Benchers to be chatting among themselves when my right hon. Friend the Minister is winding up? That is the rule.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I will be the judge of such matters.

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those of us who wish to listen cannot hear because of the hon. Lady's sedentary interventions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Maclean.

Mr. Maclean: Those of us who wish to proceed cannot do so because of interventions.
I was trying to suggest that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy should have quoted further from what the Lord Chief Justice said on "Breakfast with Frost". He quoted the Lord Chief Justice's view, which I believe to be correct, that the term "exceptional circumstances" will be construed very narrowly. I believe and hope that that is the correct interpretation. My hon. Friends may not like that view, but that is the Government's wish.

Mr. Llwyd: Although I think that that may be right, the way in which the Minister is interpreting the question is clearly extremely narrow. Time and again in Committee he was asked to cite examples, and in one speech he said:
I could put together a list of 20,000 hypothetical examples".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 43.]
Would he care to give us 10 or 20 of them now?

Mr. Maclean: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening in Committee. I said that it would not help interpretation of the Bill to cite many examples of general cases that I or anyone else dreamt up when the court was dealing with individuals before it. Exceptional circumstances will have to be defined in the individual circumstances of each accused or convicted person before the court—not on hypothetical, generalised examples that politicians may bandy across the Floor of the House, which would then, because of the Pepper v. Hart ruling, be read into the law as examples that have to be followed in every case. I went on to say that it would soon be the business of clever lawyers to devise the defence of their accused person around some of the examples that we had bandied about.

Mr. Llwyd: Do I take it, therefore, that the Minister is content, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) suggested in his very thoughtful speech, that the Court of Appeal should at some point hand down guidelines that can be followed by the courts? If so, the Minister is negating the whole point of the Bill. He started off with much bluster, saying that we cannot trust the courts and the Court of Appeal to hand out sentences, since they have had years to do it and have not done it. That was the Minister's raison d'etre for the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: We know what "exceptional circumstances" means. We know that it will be interpreted narrowly. Because the Government are satisfied that "exceptional circumstances" will be interpreted by the courts as it has been in the past, we are content to use it and rely on it.
The Lord Chief Justice said when interviewed:
One can paraphrase 'exceptional' but it clearly means 'very unusual' at the very least and most of these explanations"—
he was referring to the examples given—
are not very unusual".
The Government are satisfied that the test of exceptional circumstances will be used only in exceptional cases and that it will be interpreted strictly according to the Lord Chief Justice's view as expressed on "Breakfast with Frost".

Mr. Michael: The question that has to be answered, though, is what is the nature of the gate that is being provided. The Minister must accept that one example has been given—that given by the Home Secretary—which did not stand up to scrutiny; it fell apart on examination. The Government should not then give up and not cite any examples. They have three options. They can change the wording, which they have not, since they have not tabled amendments; they can give examples so that we can understand what they are getting at; or they can seek to explain in a way that would help under the Pepper v. Hart ruling what they intend the courts should do. At the moment, the Minister must accept that he is just abrogating responsibility.

Mr. Maclean: Absolutely not. It is the Government's intention that the courts should interpret "exceptional circumstances" in exactly the same way as they have been in other legislation over the past five years.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: No, I will not. Such a view is the view that was expressed by the Lord Chief Justice in the interview. Other hon. Members have been relying on the fact that his opinion on that is correct. I believe that it is correct. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to keep insisting on hypothetical examples when he knows full well that any such examples, no matter how nonsensical, will be used in future to interpret the law in the courts and to drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
The hon. Member criticised me for not giving examples and said that we have not tabled an amendment. He has not tabled an amendment. The Liberal Democrats, the Welsh nationalists and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham have. I happen to disagree with my right hon. Friend because I think that his definition is far too wide and I want to maintain the present restricted exceptional circumstances test. The hon. Gentleman is trying, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, to hide the fact that the Labour party is in a dither over the matter. It does not like the term "exceptional circumstances", and the best that it can think of is to try to get me to quote dozens of hypothetical examples that it will either try to shoot down in the House or in another place or use in future years to frustrate the intention behind the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I have not said that the Minister must cite examples. I said that he has three options: to amend, to exemplify or to define. He has chosen none of them. I shall therefore put a direct question to him. He is wrong to say that we have not tabled an amendment. We did, I spoke to it and he has not yet addressed it. Would the lower end of section 18 offences, which he has accepted exist and which the hon. and learned Member for Burton addressed especially in Committee, therefore be covered in some circumstances by the phrase "exceptional circumstances"? The answer would help us a little way forward.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is getting into irrelevancies and talking drivel. The minor Opposition parties and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham have a philosophical objection to the term "exceptional


circumstances". I understand their argument; I disagree with it. They are offering substitute words for the term "exceptional circumstances".
It is the Government's view that the only alternative form of words offered at the present moment by the Lord Chief Justice, the Welsh nationalists, the Liberal Democrats and my right hon. Friend would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. It would widen the phrase "exceptional circumstances". We have heard nothing from the Opposition, and there is nothing in their amendment which has anything to do with the principled debate. Do we have "exceptional circumstances" and construe the Bill narrowly, or do we have the "interests of justice" which, in the Government's opinion, would construe the Bill widely? I shall discuss the Opposition amendment in a moment, but I must make some progress.
I have not yet managed to get on the record the words of the Lord Chief Justice, and I intend to do so. When he was asked to define the phrase, the "justice of the case" he said:
It would enable the judge to avoid passing a mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so.
In any case where the trial judge thought that it would create an anomaly to impose the mandatory minimum sentence, he could avoid it. In our opinion, that means that the mandatory penalty would be set aside in many cases. That would make a nonsense of the concept and purpose of mandatory penalties and it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. Those are the alternative forms of words on offer tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said that other forms of words might come from another place in due course. I will be happy to consider any other forms of words, but if it is our view that they can be interpreted as widely as the Lord Chief Justice believes that the "justice of the case" terminology can be interpreted, they would not be acceptable to the Government.
I do not believe that mandatory penalties will lead to injustices. On the contrary, I contend that, without mandatory penalties, justice is not being done to the wider community now. Let me remind the House of the figures. A recent sample showed that the average sentence imposed by the Crown court on offenders convicted of domestic burglary for the first time is 16.2 months. After three or more convictions, the average rises to only 18.9 months and after seven or more convictions it rises to 19.4 months. A total of 28 per cent. of offenders in the Crown court with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary were not sent to prison at all. Our constituents are asking where the justice is in that. It is not justice. We believe that if the stringent qualifying conditions set out in clauses 1 to 3 are met—we intend that they shall be—mandatory sentences should be imposed as a matter of course in most cases.
We recognise that there may be occasional cases where the mandatory penalty would be unnecessary or inappropriate. That is why the discretion is in the Bill to set aside the penalty in exceptional circumstances.
I believe that we have achieved the right balance and that to go further and accept the view of the Welsh nationalists, the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) would be to go too far and undermine the effectiveness of the penalties.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth raised a point about section 18. I can see no good reason for treating section 18 offences differently from other offences covered by clause 1. The maximum penalty for offences under section 18 is, like other offences covered by clause 1, life imprisonment. Section 18 is used to prosecute the most serious assaults committed by dangerous and violent criminals, such as wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Such offences are always extremely serious. Frequently they are life threatening or leave the victim permanently disfigured and injured. It is exactly that type of person from whom the public need protection. That is what the automatic life sentence is designed to achieve. Criminals who persist in committing violent assault such as grievous bodily harm—not a simple fracas or a tiny punch-up outside a pub—need to know that they will face a stiff sentence such as life imprisonment. It would be anomalous for such offences not to attract the automatic life sentence.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has suggested that, without the change he proposes, minor offences would attract the automatic life sentence and that that would be unjust. I do not agree. For a lesser assault, a lesser charge can be brought, such as section 20 charges, for example, wounding without intent, or section 47 charges. In such cases, the maximum penalty under section 20 is five years. I do not think that we hear many complaints from the police or our constituents that the Crown Prosecution Service has overcharged people with grievous bodily harm. We all hear, in many cases erroneously, that the CPS has undercharged. That is the view of many of our constituents. If there was any suggestion that the charge of grievous bodily harm was wrongly placed, I am certain that there would not be a conviction. It would not pass the intention test.

Mr. Beith: Apart from the official Opposition we are all anxious to get on with the Division. Between now and the Bill reaching the other place, will the Minister consider the risk that, if the other amendments I have tabled are not considered carefully, we may have more mentally disordered people in prison when the courts, given the option, would have provided a more appropriate regime?

Mr. Maclean: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was wrongly informed about the mental health element that he proposed in his speech. The court may not simply set aside the automatic life sentence. To set it aside would upset the balance that the Bill provides between the need to protect the public from repeat offending and the need to enable effective medical treatment to be given to mentally disordered offenders. A disposal under the Mental Health Act 1983 cannot provide the lifetime supervision needed. The key point about the automatic life sentence is that there will be lifetime supervision.
If someone with a psychiatric problem is given an automatic life sentence, the Home Secretary can use his powers, and would intend to continue to use them, to move that person for psychiatric treatment. When the treatment is over, the life sentence can continue, including the element of supervision for life. That is the key point. In clauses 2 and 3, a sentence of a mental health restriction order can be imposed instead.
I want to challenge another point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He said that the proposals would not be introduced for 12 years. That is untrue. It is true that it may be 12 years before the final burglar who has committed his third and final offence is locked up, but, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, we intend to introduce the important provisions as soon as possible, some time later this year. As resources permit, and as we can build the prison places through the private finance initiative, we intend to bring in the other provisions in the Bill, and by 1999 we intend to bring in the burglary provisions. That will protect our constituents better than any of the suggestions made by the Opposition tonight.

Mr. Llwyd: We have had a high-quality debate with speeches from both sides of the House. There have been thoughtful contributions from people who know a great deal about the subject.
I am singularly unconvinced by the Minister's response. It is much the same as we heard in Committee. I do not know whether Sir David Frost realises the constitutional implications of his programme on that fateful Sunday morning. I suspect that law students will seek videos of that programme and depart from their normal studies in order to learn about constitutional law.
I believe that this is the core of the Bill. If this part of the Bill remains unaltered, it will be flawed. In the other place the Bill will be examined by people who are judicially qualified as well as ex-Home Office Ministers and so on. I hope that they will look at the Bill again and amend this part of it.
I am indebted to those on both sides of the House who have contributed to this debate. I am sure that it will be read carefully in the other place, and I sincerely hope that there will be a positive result. With the greatest respect, the Minister's response was typical. It takes us nowhere at all. He stuck to a poor brief. We have heard the quotation from Sir David Frost's programme before and, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, we are no nearer now than we were in Committee, and that is disappointing.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 266.

Division No. 40]
[8.28 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Ashdown, Paddy
Marek, Dr John


Beith, A J
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Pickthall, Colin


Chidgey, David
Purchase, Ken


Dafis, Cynog
Rathbone, Tim


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)



Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Steel, Sir David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tyler, Paul


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Waller, Gary


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kirkwood, Archy



Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mrs. Diana Maddock and


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. David Rendel.





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Emery, Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arbuthnot, James
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Gallie, Phil


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Bright, Sir Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Sir Terence


Channon, Paul
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Horam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clappison, James
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cope, Sir John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Curry, David
Jopling, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David






Lilley, Peter
Sims, Sir Roger


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luff, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacGregor, John
Soames, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew
Speed, Sir Keith


Maclean, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Mans, Keith
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stephen, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Streeter, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Sir James
Sweeney, Walter


Monro, Sir Hector
Sykes, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ottaway, Richard
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Trotter, Neville


Patten, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, William


Pickles, Eric
Walden, George


Porter, David
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Portillo, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Redwood, John
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sackville, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George


Shephard, Mrs Gillian



Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Peter Ainsworth and


Shersby, Sir Michael
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

AWARD OF EARLY RELEASE DAYS FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR

Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.—[[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Michael: I welcome this amendment, which will go some way towards ensuring that there is more

recognition of the award of release days for good behaviour for those serving short sentences. I welcome the fact that the Minister has modestly moved forward, and the amendment is an improvement to the Bill that I welcome.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

PROVISIONAL AWARDS FOR REMAND PRISONERS

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 7, line 31, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.
No. 13, in page 7, line 36, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.
No. 14, in page 8, line 1, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 13

RELEASE SUPERVISION ORDERS

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 9, line 9, leave out '15' and insert '25'.
In Committee we highlighted the importance of supervising offenders after release and stated that the time for supervision should be adequate to ensure that rehabilitation can take place to make sure that offenders are more likely to live settled and constructive lives, rather than being tempted into reoffending. During the debate, I moved an amendment that would have increased the supervision period after release from 15 per cent. of the sentence to 25 per cent., in the belief that this would provide an adequate period of supervision.
At the conclusion of that constructive debate, the Minister gave a positive response and said that if we would withdraw the amendment to allow him to reflect and listen to our views on another amendment that was debated on Monday in relation to violent crime, he was willing to come back on Report, where he hoped to be able to say that he was happy with the 25 per cent. that we recommended. Offenders who have a relatively short prison sentence may suffer considerable disruption of their lives, and may need, perhaps, to settle elsewhere, to re-establish family links and to be more positive in their attitude to life.
It is in society's interests that good supervision takes place, and we had a discussion—in which the Minister and I were in complete agreement—about how to make sure that the supervision of those who come out of prison is effective. I keep my remarks brief in the hope that the Minister will be able to say that he has continued his reflections after our discussions and will accept the amendment. I believe that that would be wise, and would reflect the positive nature of at least some of the discussions that we had in Committee.

Mr. Maclean: The Government accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

CONTINUITY OF SENTENCING

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 16, line 19, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 21 and insert—

(a) two-thirds of any term of four years or more which, at that time, it would have held to be appropriate if the offence had been so committed;
(b) 60 per cent. of any term of less than four years which, at that time, it would have held to be appropriate if the offence had been so committed.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 38, in schedule 2, page 49, line 11, at end insert—
'(2A) In section 3 of the 1984 Act (transfer of prisoners into the United Kingdom), in subsection (3), after subsection (b) add—
or
(c) would result in a prisoner serving longer than two thirds of the term which the Secretary of State would have considered appropriate if the transfer had taken place before the commencement of Chapter 1 of Part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.".'.

Mr. Michael: On Second Reading, the Home Secretary suggested that prisoners should, in practice, serve no more or no less after the implementation of the Bill than they would serve at present under the law as it now stands. During the Committee, it was clear that Ministers accepted our argument that, in some cases, prisoners would serve shorter sentences as a result of the Bill as drafted. They then introduced amendments that, in some cases, will lead to higher sentences being served. That not only breaches the principle that the Home Secretary established—that there should not be a practical change in terms of the length of sentences—but has implications in terms of resources.
Given the Home Secretary's question to me on Monday about resources—following which, I am afraid, I had to correct his assumptions—we must ask whether he has the authority of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer for the amendment that he tabled in Committee which, it is calculated, would add some £40 million a year to the prisons budget and would involve the building of three additional prisons of the size of Dartmoor. As far as I am aware, there has been no amendment to the financial resolution or to the assessment of the costs of the legislation that was given on Second Reading.
The policy that the Home Secretary has called honesty in sentencing means that offenders sentenced to imprisonment will serve the full period of their sentence in prison, other than a small amount of remission—up to six days a month—that could be earned by good behaviour and positive co-operation. The Government have said that this is not intended either to increase or decrease the time that offenders spend in custody, but is simply to introduce honesty in sentencing.
Clause 22 of the Bill therefore requires courts to shorten their sentences by fixing them at two thirds of the current level. In the case of prisoners serving four years

or more, it is true that, on average, this would roughly approximate to current periods in custody. Prisoners serving sentences of this length are released under supervision after two thirds of their sentence—earlier if they get parole, later if they receive additional days for disciplinary offences. Taking both the present rules and the proposals in clause 10 for earned early release days into account, the average term in custody would be similar to the present position.
That is not true of offenders serving under four years, as clause 22 would have the effect of increasing the time spent in prison compared with now. For example, a prisoner now sentenced to three years would instead be sentenced to two years. Under the new early release rules, even if he earned the maximum possible amount of remission, he would still have to serve 20 months in prison compared with 18 months now. That was acknowledged by the Minister of State in Committee on 3 December.
I will not rehearse what the Minister said at that time, but it was clear from the figures that he gave that prisoners sentenced to terms of under four years would serve 11 per cent. longer in custody than at present. That would increase the daily prison population by more than 1,800 and would cost more than £40 million a year—the estimate that I gave a few moments ago. It would also require three additional prisons the size of Dartmoor. In fact, the increase is likely to be higher than that, because those figures assume that all prisoners will earn the maximum possible remission, which is of course highly unlikely.
The increase would result not from a decision that all offenders sentenced to less than four years deserved to spend at least 11 per cent. longer in prison but from a clause that states that its aim is to ensure that an offender
serves approximately the same time in prison as he would have served if the offence had been committed immediately before commencement.
The Minister may profess to be relaxed about that completely unnecessary increase in the prison population, but an overstretched Prison Service, already desperately trying to cope with rising numbers, with expedients ranging from floating prisons to converted Royal Air Force camps, will be unlikely to take the same relaxed view. It would be interesting to know the views of prison governors about the increased pressure in their establishments.
The amendment, by requiring courts to fix their sentences for a particular group of offenders at 60 per cent. of the current level, would achieve the aim set out in subsection (1) of ensuring that prisoners serve approximately the same length of time in prison as at present. In the amendments that the Minister tabled in Committee, he corrected one anomaly and created a fresh one, and the amendment is designed to bring us back towards the target that the Home Secretary espoused on Second Reading.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: In Committee on 5 December 1996, at column 256, I raised my concern about the repatriation proposals in clause 35. I tabled new clause 11, which has not been selected, and amendment No. 38, to give a full airing to a problem caused by the Bill and tentatively to suggest a way of dealing with it.
The problem, I believe, will be acknowledged by the Government and by hon. Members of all parties, so the question will be how best to address it. Under existing law—I refer particularly to the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984—British criminals serving prison sentences abroad can be transferred back to serve their sentences in the United Kingdom, where they can more easily be visited by their families and where they may be more likely to be rehabilitated.
When that happens, the sentence imposed by a foreign court is adopted unchanged, unless it exceeds the British maximum sentence for a like offence, in which case the United Kingdom maximum is substituted. Otherwise, as in most cases, no adjustment is made to the sentence.
However—this is the rub—prisoners are subject to the systems of parole, remission and early release operating in the receiving country, so under our existing law those transferring to the United Kingdom from sentences abroad are eligible for release on parole after serving at least half their sentences in custody. Prisoners sentenced to less than 12 months in prison are automatically released altogether after serving half their sentence; prisoners serving 12 months to four years are automatically released on licence, and therefore under supervision by the probation service, until the licence period ends, which is usually three quarters of the way through the sentence; and prisoners sentenced to four years or more are eligible—it is not automatic—for release on licence after serving half their sentence and automatically released on licence after serving two thirds of their sentence.
At present, sentences imposed by foreign courts are sometimes considerably longer than sentences imposed for similar offences in the United Kingdom, and Parliament and the courts have always accepted that the Home Secretary would use his powers to grant early release on parole to remedy any injustice arising from the imposition of a disproportionately long sentence.
The problem in the Bill is that, as it substantially abolishes remission and parole, the sentence served will be the sentence passed, and that could be very much longer than a British prisoner would have to serve for the same offence in similar circumstances. The problem of unfairness would appear to be exacerbated by the provisions of the Bill, because when the sentences passed here are more closely related to the sentences served, the differences between the sentences for the same offence in similar circumstances will be even more glaring.
If British prisoners abroad are to serve far longer sentences, few will want to be transferred to this country to serve them, and the humanitarian aims of the 1984 Act will have been unintentionally negated.
The reciprocal position of a foreign national convicted in our courts who returns to his home country to serve his sentence makes the injustice yet more glaring: under the Bill he will get what is nominally a lesser sentence—one closer to the sentence that he is expected to serve—and in his country he will be subject to the local parole and remission conditions, which will of course be unaffected by our new legislation.
If it is accepted that there is not only an apparent injustice, of differences in sentences served by similar offenders in similar circumstances in different countries,

but an actual injustice, involving British prisoners serving longer sentences than the court sentencing them may have intended, the only question is how to remove it.
The organisation Prisoners Abroad, which has many eminent and distinguished supporters, not all by any means on the left of the law and order spectrum, proposed two amendments to the Bill, both of which I tabled. Amendment No. 38 was the one selected.
Sections 1 and 3 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 empower the Secretary of State to issue a warrant authorising the detention of a prisoner transferred into the United Kingdom. Section 3(1)(c) gives the Secretary of State a wide discretion to incorporate in the warrant provisions appearing to him
to be appropriate for giving effect to the international arrangements in accordance with which the prisoner is transferred.
In exercising that power, section 3(3) requires the Secretary of State to
have regard (inter alia) to the inappropriateness of the warrant's containing provisions which—
(a) are equivalent to more than the maximum penalties (if any) that may be imposed
for a similar offence in the United Kingdom. When such a sentence is encountered, it is reduced to the maximum sentence under UK law for the equivalent offence.
If the Secretary of State were required to undertake the same exercise when issuing a warrant that the UK courts will undertake when sentencing, the inequities arising from the proposed changes would be remedied. Amendment No. 38 would take us some way toward the achievement of that aim.
It may be argued that the powers of the Secretary of State as expressed in the 1984 Act are already wide enough to enable him to achieve that end, but the decision of the House of Lords and the arguments of the Executive in the leading case of Reed make it clear that only a statutory change of the kind suggested could effect the remedy that is sought.
It may also be argued that clause 9 provides a remedy in that
The Secretary of State may at any time release a prisoner if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the prisoner's release on compassionate grounds.
But such a provision is surely inappropriate for dealing with a class of offenders rather than with an individual. It would surely be wrong to seek to remedy a fundamental injustice by relying on such a limited Executive discretion. In my respectful submission, it requires a statutory change, and I ask my right hon. Friend to give that serious consideration.
May I ask my right hon. Friend about the related problem of the reciprocal arrangements for foreign prisoners sentenced in the United Kingdom who choose to serve their sentences in their home country? The British public, the police and, I think, the judiciary were last week appalled to hear that Valerio Viccei, the mastermind of the £40 million to £60 million Knightsbridge vault robbery in 1987, who received a 22-year prison sentence at the Old Bailey and who chose to serve his sentence in his home country of Italy, is now out and about after only seven years, and is enjoying his ill-gotten gains.
9 pm
To be fair, when Viccei was sentenced in 1989, British law required only a third of the sentence to be served before parole. This wise Government toughened the sentences actually served to half in the rather unfairly and oft maligned Criminal Justice Act 1991. We are now in the process of toughening even further actual sentences served by the provision of minimum sentences and more honest sentences.
Once the Bill is enacted, Viccei, with his record of armed robberies, would, in similar circumstances, be likely to receive a sentence of life imprisonment in this country. The Italian justice system is justified in applying the one-third provision in his case—that was before we toughened the minimum sentences. The position is unsatisfactory, because, under our parole rules, it is highly unlikely that Viccei would have been granted parole after a third of his sentence had been served in the United Kingdom, as he did not assist in the recovery of any of the millions of pounds—or its value—stolen during the Knightsbridge robbery. Viccei is living the life of Riley in Italy, which is not what the British Parliament, the British criminal justice system or the British people either intended or expected.
If sentences are to be served in the home country, the circumstances of serving them ought surely to be the same. If representations have not already been made to the Italians about the displeasure of our courts, our Parliament and our people, I ask my right hon. Friend that they be made, so that in future the comparative system in Italy may be improved. After all, the Italians are our colleagues in the European Union—although I hope that nothing that I say will be taken as a suggestion that home affairs and justice matters should become the competence of the European Union. I am sure that better provision for future eventualities can be arranged through nation state co-operation under the third pillar of Maastricht.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when the Bill becomes law, it will be highly unlikely—unless the law is changed in Italy to permit it—that a future perpetrator of a serious violent crime, from which the offender, who has committed another serious violent offence in the past, has gained millions of pounds, could live the life of Riley on the proceeds after only seven years in prison?

Mr. Jack Straw: As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, his remarks about the Italian justice system underline the wisdom of both main parties in the House in resisting any notion that home affairs should be part of the European Union's competence, save under the third pillar. Given the story that the hon. and learned Gentleman told, and many similar ones, I shudder to think what state British justice would be in if it were to be harmonised on the basis of the standards of Italian justice.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the report of the debate on clause 35, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He has raised an important issue. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he would
consider whether there is any way of improving the provision."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 December 1996; c. 288.]

I hope that the Minister of State will respond to the very reasonable points made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton.

Mr. Maclean: I listened carefully to the debate and will respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I must warn him that he is on dangerous ground in taking a swipe at the Italians. He may get away with that, but I advise him not to insult the Scots, who seem to be much thinner skinned.
We intend that prisoners should serve approximately the same time in prison once the Bill is in force as at present. We want the courts to take account of the changes in early release arrangements, which is the purpose of clause 22. That will mean that, when sentencing, courts will need to compare the sentence that they would have given before the changes in the Bill with the sentence that is to be imposed and adjust it accordingly to take account of the new early release arrangements. However, we want them to do that broadly, approximately and sensibly, and in a way that is easy for them to operate without reaching for laptop computers and calculators. That is what clause 22 provides.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth missed the fact that prison sentences imposed by the courts are typically in multiples of three months: six months, nine months, 18 months and so on. Asking judges or magistrates to impose sentences equal to two thirds of a 12-month sentence involves an easy calculation. I am not sure about the mathematical rules or whether the common integer is three or four, but the figures are all easily divisible. I shall not bore the House with a complete analysis of all the permutations up to four years.
The result of the process will be sensible sentencing. Divisions by two thirds are simple to calculate. Two thirds of 18 months is straightforward: it leads to a sentence of 12 months. Asking judges or magistrates to impose a sentence equal to 60 per cent. of a 12 or 18-month sentence is not such a simple calculation. Calculations that involve dividing by six tenths lead to incredible nonsense. They would produce sentences of seven months, six days or nine months, six days and various split months and split days. The Government's proposals involve a simple division.
I admit that prisoners serving sentences of less than four years will serve longer before they can be released: if the sentence imposed is eight months rather than seven months, six days, they will serve 18 days longer. Prisoners will generally serve a few days or months longer before they can be released under clause 22 as drafted than they would if it were to be amended as proposed by the Opposition. Prisoners will also spend longer under supervision following release. That does not unduly concern me. Offenders know that they could face prison sentences before they commit offences and that they will be subject to supervision on release. They do not have good grounds to complain that under our proposals they will serve an extra 18 days compared to what they would serve under the Opposition proposal.

Mr. Straw: I have been listening to the Minister's remarks with great care and witnessing the instructions that he has been given by hand signal by the Whip. He says that prisoners may not complain about 18 days, although I think that they probably will. However, what


has the Treasury had to say about this? What does he think will be the additional cost of the Government's proposal?

Mr. Maclean: That is a key point, which I was about to address. In "Protecting the Public", we made it clear that we had made our calculations in drawing up the document. We calculated that the sentences imposed would be broadly similar. Clause 22 provides the mechanism for that. As has been said, there was some confusion. Three different Front-Bench spokesmen understood it in three different ways. However, we came to the view that it could have resulted in undershooting, in some prisoners serving less than we had intended. We therefore made this proposal, which means that some prisoners who serve less than four years will serve a bit more than we intended.
Our calculations were based on the assumption that whatever the wording of clause 22, the sentences would be broadly similar. Our calculations had parameters that ranged from £375 million to £435 million. We did not calculate an exact cost—I do not think that one could be exact—but the change in clause 22 is financed within those parameters. The old wording would have led us closer to the lower level of £375 million. With the changes that are proposed, however, the calculated costs will be closer to £435 million—in other words, to the upper band of the parameters. That being so, there is no need to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for supplementary funding. The proposed changes mean that some prisoners who will serve longer sentences are already catered for in the financial calculations that have been made. For those reasons, amendment No. 5 is wrong and I cannot accept it.
I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 38, proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my right hon. Friend does that—I am conscious of the time—will he take on board the concerns of the criminal law sub-committee of the Council of Circuit Judges, which feels that the way in which clause 22 is worded gives a substantial increase to magistrates' sentencing powers, something which was not really considered in Committee, nor on Report? I have no doubt that the issue will be considered in another place. If we are suddenly to increase magistrates' sentencing powers, there will be an impact on the distribution of court work. I think that the judges are worried about that consequence. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter? I will write with details as soon as my right hon. Friend resumes his place.

Mr. Maclean: I will certainly do that. One of the benefits of the Bill, however, is that effectively it gives magistrates slightly increased powers. I welcome that. At present, the maximum term of imprisonment that they can impose is six months, which is automatically cut to three months. The Bill will give them an extra month of sentencing power.
Amendment No. 38 is a thoughtful proposition. It is designed to ensure that prisoners who are repatriated to serve a prison sentence in the United Kingdom are not disadvantaged by the changes in early-release arrangements that will be introduced by means of the Bill.
I listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend said. I agree that we need a solution that is flexible enough to take account of the wide range of sentencing regimes in other countries. We believe that administrative measures are likely to offer the best way forward. We believe also that they would be legally permissible. We understand that such measures can be introduced within the existing legislative framework and that of the Bill. That will go a considerable way towards meeting the concerns expressed by my hon. and learned Friend. The issue is complex and we are considering the final details. We believe, however, that it will be possible to administer the sentences of those who are repatriated following the implementation of chapter I of part II in such a way that it will mitigate any potential disadvantages to prisoners returning to the United Kingdom from abroad.
We have in mind that the balance of the sentence to be served on return to this country will be calculated in taking account of the supervision period that will be required under the Bill's provisions. That means that the total time served, or deemed to be served, by the prisoner abroad, when added to the time to be served here and the required period of supervision, will not exceed the headline sentence imposed abroad. In view of these assurances—we shall explain the final details when they have been completed—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will feel that we are dealing with these matters satisfactorily and will not wish to pursue his amendment.
As for Valerio Viccei, he was repatriated to Italy under the provisions of the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons on 11 November 1992. As the Italians have followed the convention, I do not think that it would be appropriate to protest to them about their following of the convention in terms of Italian law in the granting of parole. If my hon. and learned Friend does not like the behaviour of the Italians, it would be necessary to renegotiate the convention.
If Valerio Viccei had remained in custody in England and Wales, he would have been eligible for release on parole licence on 13 December 1994, once he had served one third of his sentence, not the one half quoted in the Sunday newspapers.
Following repatriation, the question of a prisoner's suitability for release from custody in a foreign jurisdiction, including any temporary release, is a matter for the authorities in that jurisdiction. My hon. and learned Friend is right, however, that in future, when the Bill is enacted, any criminals with previous convictions such as those of Valerio Viccei, committed in the United Kingdom, will come within the automatic life sentence provisions. They will be eligible for release once the Parole Board has concluded that that would be safe. In other words, there would be quite heavy sentences. In view of these assurances, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not wish to press amendment No. 38 to a Division. I hope also that he is satisfied on Valerio Viccei.

Mr. Michael: We have probed the issue and demonstrated that the Government went too low and that some people would have had shorter sentences. As a result of the amendments made in Committee to try to put that right, some people will now have longer sentences.
In view of the Home Secretary's intervention on Monday, I have to say that Home Office Ministers appear to be quite cavalier about their calculation of the exact


impact of variations on Government finances. Nevertheless, we have succeeded in our aim, which was to highlight the problem. We recognise that it is difficult to be precise about the impact of the introduction of these measures or absolutely certain that the same sentence will be the practical outcome in the future as it was in the past—a point that we made at the beginning of the series of debates on this issue. Having achieved our aim, I do not think that we need to take up any more time, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27

DURATION AND CONDITIONS OF LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 19, line 24, at end insert—
'(6) In relation to a life prisoner who is liable to removal from the United Kingdom (within the meaning given by section 20(2) above), subsection (2) above shall have effect as if the words in parentheses were omitted.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 2

REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS TO THE BRITISH ISLANDS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 49, line 6, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.
No. 22, in page 49, line 10, leave out '(ii)'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 58, line 26, after `summarily)' insert `(a)'.
No. 24, in page 58, line 27, at end insert 'and
(b) for the words "and section 62(6) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words ", section 14(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (committal for breach of conditions of release supervision order),".'.
No. 25, in page 61, line 12, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
No. 26, in page 61, line 13, after 'if' insert—

'(a) any hospital direction under section 45A above were a transfer direction under section 47 above; and
(b)'.

No. 27, in page 61, line 15, at end insert—
'(5) Sections 80(5), 81(6) and 85(4) above shall have effect as if any reference to a transfer direction given while a patient was serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court included a reference to a hospital direction given by a court after imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a patient.".'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 5

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 64, line 13, leave out 'made' and insert 'having effect'.
No. 41, in page 65, line 10, leave out from 'court' to end of line 11 and insert
'less any period by which the sentence falls to be reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

(9) In sub-paragraph (8) above "the appropriate proportion" means one-half in the case of a term of less than four years and two thirds in the case of a term of four years or more.'
No. 28, in page 65, line 26, after 'if' insert
'—
(a) after paragraph (b) of subsection (3), there were inserted the words 'and
(c) the provisions of this section as compared with those of sections 33(2) and 35(1) of the 1991 Act"; and
(b)".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 68, line 43, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 42(1), the words "or section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967".'.
No. 30, in page 68, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert—
'In section 37(4), the words "in the event of such an order being made by the court".'.
—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 31

FINE DEFAULTERS: GENERAL

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 22, line 25, leave out from 'things;' to end of line 26.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 4, in page 23, line 7, leave out from `things;' to end of line 8.

Mr. Straw: This a short point and we would be grateful for a response from the Minister. It relates to welcome arrangements being made in the Bill to provide for community service or curfew orders imposed for fine default. Our question is about how the courts should deal with those matters when there is a breach of the order for community service or curfew.
My understanding is that, in other respects, where an offender breaches his community service order the court is able to take into account whether the offender has completed none of the original order or has completed all but a few hours in deciding what penalty to impose for the breach. The Bill as it stands takes an all-or-nothing approach, whereby an offender who does not complete his community service order or obey his curfew order has—quite rightly—to go back to court to be dealt with for that breach. It is not apparent on the face of the Bill whether the court will be able to take account how much community service has been undertaken by the offender when determining what further penalty should be imposed.
This matter was raised in Committee, but we think that Ministers should give it further consideration.

Mr. Sackville: The purpose of all matters of fine enforcement is to make the offender pay the fine.
Under our proposals, a person who is given a community sentence can reduce the term of that order by paying off the fine, just as at present fine defaulters can reduce the period of imprisonment imposed on them by paying off the fine. However, we do not think that offenders should be able to elect to work off part of their fine through partial compliance with a community service or curfew order, which would be the practical effect of the amendment.
Offenders who are fined must pay the fine or face the consequences. If an offender fails to comply with a community penalty that is imposed as a punishment for failing to pay a fine imposed by the court, the fine remains outstanding in full. Under the provisions of the Bill, the court has the power to revoke the community penalty imposed for the original fine default and re-sentence in respect of that default.
The House will understand that serving the community penalty in full will discharge the financial penalty in full, but short of total compliance with the community penalty we do not believe that offenders should have the freedom to take their pick between community service and outstanding financial penalties. It is therefore not our intention that the offender can select a package from among a range of available penalties. Hence I would not recommend accepting the amendment.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for that explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35

OFFENDERS

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 26, line 13, at end insert—
'(2A) Where a court orders a person to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence under this section, the degree of punishment inflicted by the order, or by the combination of the order and any other order or orders made in respect of the offence, shall be such as in the opinion of the court are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.'.
The Bill contains the novel principle that someone can be disqualified from driving for an offence that had nothing to do with motor cars. There are, to be sure, related principles in, for instance, the salmon legislation. A person's car can be confiscated if he drives a car to carry out a salmon poaching offence, but in this case a person might travel to an offence on a bus and yet be disqualified from driving his motor car.
I do not oppose the idea in principle but I wish to raise a concern expressed by the Magistrates Association and the Justices' Clerks Society about proportionality in relation to the use of driving disqualification as a penalty for offences unconnected with the motor car.
Driving disqualification has a completely different effect on different people. For someone who hardly uses the car it may be of almost no consequence; for someone whose livelihood depends on it, it could mean a difference of thousands of pounds.
Many pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Justice Act 1991, set criteria requiring a sentence to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The Minister has no difficulty with the principle at stake; indeed his view in Committee was that an amendment was unnecessary because the courts have a general duty to take account of the seriousness of the offence when passing sentence. Obviously the Minister does not have much confidence in the courts' ability to carry out such duties; otherwise he would not have introduced the legislation compelling courts to pass mandatory sentences.
It seems odd that, with this novel penalty, the Minister should have departed from the widespread practice of imposing a statutory requirement for proportionality. The amendment seeks to import precisely that proportionality.

Mr. Llwyd: I support the amendment, but I have reservations about the new form of penalty in any event. As I understand it, the Justices' Clerks Society was not consulted when the idea was first discussed. I acknowledge the need for proportionality, but it represents quite a departure from the usual criminal law to impose a wholly unconnected penalty for such offences. Indeed, it might have a detrimental effect and hamper the rehabilitation of an offender who, on release, might not be able to get employment as a result.
I believe that the punishment must fit the crime, but this is not the right approach. It is laughable to think that the professional criminal will in any way be deterred by the fear that he might lose his licence.

Mr. Maclean: I do not consider the amendment necessary, in view of the established principle of sentencing which already ensures that its aims are met. It is a fundamental principle of sentencing that the punishment should fit the crime. The courts must consider the nature of the offence and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances before deciding what sentence to impose. The sentencer must also have regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the offender.
Consequently, a court will not impose disqualification from driving unless satisfied that such a penalty is appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the offence.
The penalty will be introduced by way of pilot schemes; we cannot consult on every single change we wish to make. In this case we have chosen to run pilots before we finalise the scheme. The pilot process will identify the implications before we go for national implementation. The pilots will also identify any need to produce guidelines for the courts, such as those produced in other circumstances by the Magistrates Association. Therefore, as we will have pilot schemes, and in view of the fundamental principle that all sentences must at all times have regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender, the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Beith: The Minister's argument is unconvincing. He repeats what he said in Committee. This bit of the Bill is odd, but it is not one of principles on which we would wish to go to the stake. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40

CURFEW ORDERS

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 28, leave out line 26 and insert
'for the word "sixteen" there shall be substituted the word "fifteen".'.

Mr. Beith: The amendment relates to the electronic tagging of juveniles. Its purpose is to restrict the use of electronic tagging to young offenders who are 15 or over.
The Government have issued much publicity on the merits of electronic tagging, aided by companies that were involved in the pilot project. I was struck that the press releases that came into my hands after an announcement over Christmas were not from the Home Office, but from Securicor. I began to wonder who was in charge at the Home Office—Securicor seemed to be setting the agenda.
The research has had some useful results. It has demonstrated that considerable progress has been made in dealing with the technology, which failed lamentably at earlier stages. It looks as if it can be made to work, but, from that research, it is difficult to draw useful conclusions either about the cost of tagging or its suitability for very young offenders.
It seems that tagging would have to be used much more than seems likely before it was cost-effective for the companies concerned. I have been told that there was heavy staff involvement from the companies concerned in the project and that one company had 25 staff involved for 50 offenders. That ratio is not going to be maintained. Unless courts make far more use of the electronic tagging system than seems likely, the cost will be high. Even in America, where it is more well established, the proportion of offenders involved in electronic tagging is small, but in the limited time that we have available tonight, I want to concentrate on its applicability to very young offenders—those under the age of 15.
What young, increasingly hardened offenders need is not technology to ensure that they are kept under house arrest, but supervision. They need responsible adult role models—people who give them guidance and set an example. It is no use simply satisfying ourselves that we have confined a youngster embarking on a criminal career to a particular place unless we do some good in that place. If the youngster is under adequate supervision there, electronic tagging is of little importance or significance.
The case for using electronic tagging of an adult offender may be easier to make if we are trying to ensure that that offender does not go into areas where he or she can readily commit crimes, but if we are talking about a 13 or 14-year-old persistent offender, that youngster should be under extensive supervision by a parent, teacher, social worker or probation officer—skilled professionals. If there is no family back-up, skilled professionals will have to do all the work. If there is some family back-up, skilled professionals should be helping the family. The last thing that is significant in this case is our ability to maintain an electronic tag to show that the young person is in that place. The important thing is who is there to ensure that that young person has the role model, guidance, help and all the rest of it.
Resources will be grossly misapplied if they go into the electronic tagging scheme, instead of appropriate supervision and management of difficult, seriously misguided and sometimes dangerous youngsters. Therefore, our amendment suggests that, if the Government want to proceed in developing the electronic tagging scheme for adults, let them do so, but, for the youngest offenders, the Government's efforts should be directed at their supervision, control, training and development, not at a scheme that can achieve none of those things and that would grossly misuse resources.
I invite Ministers to think again. Courts will not be likely to make much use of electronic tagging for this purpose, but if they are able to do so at all, there is likely to be a significant misapplication of resources, which should be used in the way that I have described.

Mr. Maclean: What I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands—although we had a good discussion about it in Committee—is that, in the Government's view, a curfew order for the 10-to-14 age group will be an additional valuable tool to deal with juvenile offenders. There is nothing to suggest that supervision orders and another range of activities cannot take place at the same time.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, if we have electronic tagging for youngsters, we will do nothing else—that we will simply invest all our hopes in the panacea of electronics. That is not the case. Indeed, research published recently shows that the tagging equipment works effectively: 75 per cent. of offenders were tagged successfully, and completed their curfew orders. It also shows that there is tremendous merit in using the new electronic technology that is available—and, of course, backing that up with supervision by parents, teachers, social workers, probation officers or anyone else. There is nothing to stop supervision orders being made in addition to tagging, or as part of it.
9.30 pm
We have made a number of modifications to the curfew order to reflect the younger age of the people to whom we are extending it. We have said that the maximum term should be three months rather than six, and that before making an order the court must obtain and consider information about the family circumstances and the effect that the order will have on the family. That is to ensure that the legislation is targeted appropriately on the youngsters on whom we think it will have the best effect.
We intend to introduce the order on a pilot basis. There may be new and unanticipated difficulties with the younger age group, and a pilot study should help to identify the problems and ensure that we can use the system as effectively with that group as we have found from our studies that we can use it with the older age group.
In view of those assurances—and, if he reads the report of the Committee stage, he will see that we made the point at greater length then—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will conclude that the amendment is unnecessary and his fears unjustified.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 42

PUBLICATION OF REPORTS

Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 29, line 16, leave out 'child or young person' and insert
'person of over the age of sixteen years'.
The amendment would restrict the identification of juveniles in reports of youth court proceedings to those aged 16 or over.
Clause 42 allows convicted juveniles who appear in the youth court to be publicly named if the court
is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so".
The current legal provisions on the anonymity of children and young persons are governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 49 prohibits the identification of children and young persons who appear in youth courts. There are only two exceptions, which apply if the court believes that allowing publicity is appropriate to avoid injustice to the child—for example, if it is the only way in which to locate alibi or other defence witnesses—or if a young person involved in proceedings relating to a serious offence is unlawfully at large. In that instance, the court can authorise identification only on an application from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Section 39 of the Act states that the Crown court may direct that media reports shall not identify a child or young person. In practice, Crown courts normally prohibit identification, but exceptionally, after conviction, judges sometimes order that they may be identified.
When clause 42 was debated in Committee, it transpired that the Government intended not that youth courts should follow the Crown court's current practice of using the power to identify juveniles sparingly, but that they should use the power extensively for certain categories of offender. On 10 December, the Minister of State said:
some people are persistent offenders. In their case, I should expect the power to be used extensively rather than rarely … I hope that courts will use the relevant power widely in the case of these offenders, as the rule rather than the exception. That would permit members of the local community, such as the chamber of commerce, traders, retailers, the neighbourhood watch, the police—or councils, perhaps, in instances of council estates being terrorised—to effect limited publication in a defined area of the names of those people for whom innocent members of the public should look out."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 316–17.]
The Magistrates Association has not asked for any change in the law on the matter. When the proposal was canvassed in the media in late 1996, the Association issued a statement, which stated:
It is the Magistrates Association's view that reporting restriction on young offenders should not be changed … The Association points out that young children have a different psychological perception and are treated differently in youth courts where they are dealt with by magistrates who have been specifically training in dealing with juvenile matters.
Repeat offenders for whom school, family etc have been a failure, gain kudos and popularity amongst their peer groups from offending and naming them would make them heroes.
Probation service organisations and those involved in resettlement of offenders have also opposed the proposals. Their arguments were summarised in a statement, on 27 November 1996, by the Penal Affairs Consortium, which stated:

Naming young offenders … will hinder rather than help the prospects for steering young people away from crime.
The reason why the names of juvenile offenders are not normally published is that it can seriously hinder their rehabilitation. This is as true now as it was when the rule was introduced in 1933. The way the media have hounded a few young offenders after Crown Court trials, sometimes for years afterwards, shows how necessary the rule of anonymity is.
I should say that I have 18 years' experience of juvenile courts, and to this day I have never met a juvenile who did not, on balance, have more good than bad in him or her. If we are to close the door on them and stigmatise them from the very beginning, one of the four core points of any penal code—rehabilitation—will go out of the window.
In a briefing sent to members of the Standing Committee on the Bill, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation opposed the amendment. It stated:
Judges already have the power to lift the provisions which stop juvenile offenders being identified. This is only used very sparingly at the moment and where it has been done it has made work with the offender significantly more difficult.
The Government have advanced two principal arguments for the amendment: first, it would help to protect the public; and, secondly, it would have a deterrent effect. On the first point, on 10 December 1996, the Minister said in Standing Committee:
It is important that members of the public should be protected from young offenders and that courts should be able, in the public interest, to permit identification of youngsters who have been convicted, especially when they are released into the community for punishment.
He also said:
We are taking this action largely because the community does not know the names of persistent offenders and is vulnerable to further attack from them.
The Minister went on to state:
But I am concerned about the hundreds of young offenders whose names are never revealed, so the public remain innocent dupes ready to be attacked by them the next time.

Mr. Maclean: That is right.

Mr. Llwyd: However, as the Magistrates Association pointed out in its statement on the proposal:
It is not necessary to name children in order to alert communities as they are already well known in their local areas.
I believe that it is essential to realise how important the rehabilitation of young offenders is to the protection of communities and that—as bodies working with young offenders have pointed out—the rehabilitation of young offenders is likely to be damaged by this measure, which could very well be counter-productive and expensive because of the money expended and society's failure.
The Government's second argument for the measure is based on deterrence. In Standing Committee, the Minister said:
I also believe that the prospect of being identified publicly should prompt many young offenders—and their families—to think more carefully about their actions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 310–15.]
However, young offenders are the group least likely to be deterred by this type of measure. A high proportion of juvenile crime results from impulsive behaviour, risk-taking, the escalation of anti-social behaviour in groups and in other situations in which rational


calculations of deterrence play a small part. The possibility of public identification is also likely to have very little effect on the minority of young offenders who plan their offences more carefully as their principal concern is to plan and not get caught.
By preventing the identification of juveniles under 16 in the reports of youth proceedings, the amendment would avoid the unnecessary stigmatisation of this group and reduce the damage to the rehabilitation of young offenders which would otherwise result from the clause. The clause is wrong in principle and will be detrimental to the cause of rehabilitation.
Furthermore, the clause is illogical and impractical. For very good reasons, juvenile cases have been held in camera-in other words, the general public has been excluded. How can one therefore honestly say that it is acceptable to name a juvenile, perhaps in a sketchy and skewed reference in the local press, and, at the same time, to exclude the public, thereby depriving them of the true opportunity to hear the case in its totality? Sadly, I conclude that the clause has more to do with pre-election, right-wing muscle flexing than improving the criminal justice system. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed verbatim exactly the argument that he advanced in Committee. He has also been kind enough to read out the answers that I gave him.

Mr. Llwyd: I did not speak to such an amendment in Committee so I do not know where the Minister gets that idea from. Perhaps it is a bit late in the day for him.

Mr. Maclean: I recall the same argument being rehearsed verbatim. I am not impugning the hon. Gentleman's integrity but someone must have borrowed someone else's notes because I remember it well. How was the hon. Gentleman able to recite my answers if I did not reply extensively to the same debate in Committee? I have tonight heard the same argument as I heard in Committee. If it was not advanced by him, I apologise.
There is not much more that I can add to what I said in Committee other than to stress that the court will have the discretion whether identification shall be made. The court may consider identification inappropriate in the case of some first-time offenders convicted of a less serious crime but think otherwise in the case of some hardened, persistent young thugs and hooligans who, unfortunately, exist in this country but are—thank goodness—in a minority.
I am thinking of the type of hooligan about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) used to speak and who were called the Sutton posse. Gangs of dozens of youngsters terrorised town centres but could not be named although shopkeepers and members of the public were desperate to know who they were. They are the sort of offenders that we believe the court should have the power to name.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has not made a convincing case for us to accept the amendment. The arguments that I advanced today and in Committee still stand.

Mr. Llwyd: I am not convinced by that reply which was no doubt also trotted out in Committee, although I do not recall the exact words. I am increasingly becoming a fan of the other place which, I hope, will put the clause where it belongs—in the dustbin.
Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1

TRANSFER OF PRISONERS WITHIN THE BRITISH ISLANDS

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 41, line 27, leave out
'27 and 32 to 34'
and insert '29(5), 33 and 35'.

No. 44, in page 41, line 32, leave out 'sub-paragraph (3)' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A)'.

No. 45, in page 41, line 39, at end insert—
'(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above, sections 13 to 15 of this Act shall not apply to a person whose transfer from Scotland to England and Wales is a restricted transfer.'.

No. 46, in page 41, line 42, leave out 'section 32' and insert 'sections 29(5) and 33'.

No. 47, in page 41, line 52, leave out '34' and insert '35'.

No. 48, in page 41, line 53, leave out '32' and insert '33'.

No. 49, in page 42, leave out line 7.

No. 50, in page 42, leave out lines 11 to 14.

No. 51, in page 42, line 14, at end insert—


'Released by virtue of section 30 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997
Released by virtue of section 10 of this Act'.

No. 52, in page 42, leave out line 17.

No. 53, in page 42, line 32, leave out

'27, 28 and 32 to 34'

and insert

'29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.

No. 54, in page 42, line 47, leave out 'section 32' and insert 'sections 29(5) and 33'.

No. 55, in page 43, line 5, leave out '28' and insert '30'.

No. 56, in page 43, line 8, leave out '28' and insert '30'.

No. 57, in page 43, leave out line 16.

No. 58, in page 43, line 19, at end insert—


'Justices for a petty sessions area
Probation Board for Northern Ireland'.

No. 59, in page 43, leave out lines 20 to 24.

No. 60, in page 43, leave out line 28.

No. 15, in page 43, line 38, leave out second 'and'.

No. 16, in page 43, line 40, after '1976' insert
'and Articles 26 to 28 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.

No. 17, in page 44, line 7, after '1976' insert
',the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.

No. 18, in page 44, line 25, leave out second 'and'.

No. 19, in page 44, line 27, after '1976' insert
'and Articles 26 to 28 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.

No. 20, in page 44, line 43, after '1976' insert
',the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.

No. 42, in page 45, line 47, at end insert—
'(5) Where the relevant purposes in relation to a transfer to Scotland which is an unrestricted transfer include supervision, the person to whom the transfer relates shall be treated as if a supervised release order had been made in respect of him by such court as the Secretary of State may specify:.— [Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 2

REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS TO THE BRITISH ISLANDS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 49, line 6, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.

No. 22, in page 49, line 10, leave out '(ii)'.

No. 61, in page 50, line 11, after 'imposed' insert 'for offences committed'.

No. 62, in page 50, line 35, after 'imposed' insert 'for offences committed'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 58, line 26, after 'summarily)' insert '(a)'.

No. 24, in page 58, line 27, at end insert 'and
(b) for the words "and section 62(6) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words ", section 14(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (committal for breach of conditions of release supervision order),".'.

No. 25, in page 61, line 12, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

No. 26, in page 61, line 13, after 'if' insert—

'(a) any hospital direction under section 45A above were a transfer direction under section 47 above; and
(b)'.

No. 27, in page 61, line 15, at end insert—
'(5) Sections 80(5), 81(6) and 85(4) above shall have effect as if any reference to a transfer direction given while a patient was serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court included a reference to a hospital direction given by a court after imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a patient.".'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 5

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 64, line 13, leave out 'made' and insert 'having effect'.

No. 41, in page 65, line 10, leave out from 'court' to end of line 11 and insert
'less any period by which the sentence falls to be reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
(9) In sub-paragraph (8) above "the appropriate proportion" means one-half in the case of a term of less than four years and two thirds in the case of a term of four years or more.'

No. 28, in page 65, line 26, after 'if' insert

'—
(a) after paragraph (b) of subsection (3), there were inserted the words 'and
(c) the provisions of this section as compared with those of sections 33(2) and 35(1) of the 1991 Act"; and

(b)".'

No. 63, in page 67, line 14, leave out
'29 and 33 to 35'

and insert
'29(5), 33 and 35'.

No. 64, in page 67, line 28, leave out
'29 and 33 to 35'

and insert
'29(5), 33 and 35'.

No. 65, in page 68, line 1, leave out
'29, 30 and 33 to 35'

and insert
'29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.

No. 66, in page 68, line 11, at end insert
'and the Table set out in that sub-paragraph contained the following entry—

"Probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area
Probation Officer appointed by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland".'.

No. 67, in page 68, line 15, leave out
'29, 30 and 33 to 35'

and insert
'29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 68, line 43, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 42(1), the words "or section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967".'.
No. 30, in page 68, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert—
'In section 37(4), the words "in the event of such an order being made by the court".'.
—[Mr. Maclean.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Howard.]

Mr. Beith: The Bill is an attempt at the general deception of the public. The prison system has no affect on most crimes. Most are undetected and most offences do not, and will not, following the passage of the Bill, result in a prison sentence.
Prison is essential for some offenders, but its record for rehabilitation does not lead one to believe that the placing of the maximum possible number of people in prison will lead to fewer crimes—indeed, quite the contrary. The Bill requires 11,000 more people—perhaps many more; that is the Government's estimate—to be put in an already overcrowded prison system, at a cost, according to Government figures, of £1.2 billion. Many estimate that the additional prison building programme will cost more.
There is no provision in the public finances for that expenditure, which leads me to believe, as I said earlier, that the Government are not serious about bringing all the provisions of the Bill into force. The Minister of State said earlier that the provisions would be brought into force as resources allowed. We know what that means—that the resources are not likely to be found and the Bill is an exercise in trying to convince the public that the Government are being tough when the money is not there to do it. If the money is found, it will be at the expense of the rest of the Home Office budget, much of which goes on policing and the prevention of crime. As a result, more crimes will be committed.
Labour Members seem prepared to go along with most of that. They have probed the details of the Bill and sought amendments to some parts of it, but they appear committed to the main principle of mandatory sentencing and must therefore be committed to the cost implications that I have described. They were not willing—

Mr. Straw: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks with care. He was not a member of the Standing Committee—nor was I—and he was also not present on Monday, as far as I remember, when we had an interesting debate about sentencing policies in different parts of the country. Is he aware that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) brought to the attention of the House the fact that in Hereford, where he sat as a recorder, there were much tougher sentences? He accepted that that contributed towards Hereford being a more orderly area than some others.

Mr. Beith: I am aware of my hon. and learned Friend's speech. I enjoyed his references to sheep stealing in particular, which is a problem in my part of the country. He certainly did not commit himself to the scale of sentencing and imprisonment implicit in the Bill, which the Labour party appears to support. A little earlier this evening, we had a debate about whether the principle that the courts should have at their disposal when considering whether to apply a mandatory sentence should be a narrow one or a wider one, to serve the interests of justice. The Labour party could not even bring itself to support the amendment, even though some Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), voted for it. Labour Members have run away from the issue. If they get into the habit of standing on their heads, they may find that they cannot get back on their feet.

Mr. George Walden: I should like to place on record briefly exchanges that I have had with my hon. Friend the Minister about the Bill. Those exchanges concern Adam Dent, the son of a constituent of mine, who has suffered a grave injustice at the hands of the law and the press.
Adam Dent, a 15-year-old student of chemistry at Oxford—something of a prodigy—was publicly accused of the attempted rape of a fellow student. Subsequently, the Crown Prosecution Service decided, on the basis of his age, his previous good character and the nature of the evidence, that no charge was to be brought against him.
Meanwhile, however, the accusations—and Adam Dent's name—were bandied about freely in the press. Delays by the Crown Prosecution Service meant that there was plenty of time to spread his alleged crimes far and wide. The Daily Mail, for example, did a centre-page spread. As a direct result of exposure to allegations, on which the Crown Prosecution Service later decided not to prosecute, it became impossible for Adam to continue with his studies at Oxford. For a gifted student, this was a double tragedy. He was fortunate in having determined and articulate parents to protect his interests. That is not the case for everyone.
It was possible for the press to behave in that fashion because of a technical loophole in the law. I shall not take up the House's time with the details, but paradoxically and scandalously, it is possible to name an alleged juvenile offender who was subsequently not charged. Guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers advises police officers not to name individuals under investigation. However, that does not prevent anyone else from speaking to the media.
Meanwhile, the woman concerned received the full protection of the 1988 Act and can never be named. Obviously, I am in favour of that protection. I have no means of assessing whether her complaint was brought in good faith or whether it was to any extent malicious. Either way, she—an adult—was protected, whereas Adam—a juvenile who had not been charged—was not.
The case relates to the Bill in the following way: when I drew the injustice to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, he recognised the need to close the loophole in the law and undertook to do so. I am grateful to him for that and for his co-operation on the matter. However, it was subsequently decided that it would be difficult to do so in the Bill as it concerns sentencing.
I need hardly add that my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Dent, are disappointed. They had been pressing for a change in the law not so much for the sake of their own son—it being rather too late to redress his grievance—as for others who might be caught in the same trap. Meanwhile, their son remains exposed to innuendo and misleading reporting. Incidentally, it is with the family's agreement that I have named Adam Dent in the House tonight in the hope of making it clear beyond any doubt that no charges were ever brought against the boy. I hope that the press will continue to exercise some restraint about naming him or identifying him in any way.
Ideally, I should like the Bill to include the legislation that the Minister agrees is necessary to prevent identification of juveniles before charge. That cannot be done for technical reasons and I wish to place on public record his assurance, for which I am grateful, that the Government will introduce legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
It is appalling to think that any rape case might be hushed up, but it is equally appalling to think that the good name of any young man anywhere could at any time be ruined on the affirmation of any woman, even if he is never charged while she rightly enjoys lifelong protection. I am not concerned with sexual politics, simply with the scope for patent injustice as the law stands.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I agree with every word of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1995 to provide for anonymity for defendants in rape cases. Like my hon. Friend, I thought it a gross injustice that an accused man should have his name plastered all over the press before being acquitted. After I introduced that Bill, I was approached by Mrs. Irene Jackson, whose son Mark was accused of rape. He was acquitted, but he could not live with the shame and he hanged himself. I do not wish that to happen to any other young man. I have discussed the matter several times with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: As I made clear in answer to the Home Secretary's statement on 3 April 1996, we have never disputed the overall aim of the Bill, which is to ensure more consistency, progression and honesty in sentencing. However, we have challenged the methods and the justice and practicality of those methods in some areas of the law.
The proposals in the Bill for more honesty in sentencing have been improved in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) among others for securing that improvement. None the less, we have yet to be convinced that the Minister's method for achieving honesty in sentencing is more effective and understandable than our simpler alternative.
We have made it clear that we support the principle of indeterminate life sentences for repeat rapists and others. The Secretary of State must, however, accept that the only thing that will be automatic for those sentences is the label attached to them. The length of the tariff to be served will be set by the trial judge, and as the Minister of State made clear in Committee, that will be within the "complete discretion" of the trial judge. The decision about the release date after the tariff has been served will be made by the Parole Board on the basis of whether it would be safe to release.
We have had a dispute about the total list of trigger offences. The objections that we have raised in respect of section 18 wounding are serious, and Ministers ought to think again about it. In my judgment, the net effect of including section 18 wounding will be more downgrading of the charge to section 20 and fewer people being convicted of the former significant charge.
On minimum determinate sentences, the Bill's propositions are a far cry from those in the Home Secretary's conference speech in 1995. Then, he refused to admit that there would be exceptions. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said in 1991 and since then, once there are exceptions the character of automaticity is changed. Indeed, that is very much so. The Home Secretary knows that, if serious injustice arises from rigidity in the system, British juries will simply not convict, and guilty people will walk free.
We have not been impressed by the way in which Ministers have sought to hide behind the doctrine of Pepper v. Hart and, as it were, pass the parcel of what will be included, in exceptional circumstances, back to the Court of Appeal. Ministers ought to have been very much more explicit about what they had in mind when they agreed to the phrase. That will no doubt be explored in the other place.
The Secretary of State asked me on Monday what our overall approach would be to the Bill. As I said then, we shall make our final decisions when the Bill is in its final form, which will be when it has been through the other place. At present, it is a moving, shifting target. It has been changed in Committee and may well change again. We are not going to block its Third Reading. The Minister of State is well aware of the constructive approach that we took to the Bill in Committee.
Even on the Secretary of State's wildly optimistic assumptions about public spending, many of the Bill's proposals cannot come into force in practice until 2001. Meanwhile, the Government have to recognise that, despite the fact that this is the 34th criminal justice Bill to be introduced in the past 18 years, crime has doubled, convictions are falling and a party that was elected on a manifesto to create greater law and better order 18 years ago has presided over the greatest epidemic of crime and disorder that this country has ever seen.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): It may just about be comprehensible that the Labour party will not come to a final view on the Bill's proposals until the Bill has completed its passage through the other place, but what we completely fail to understand is why it cannot come to a view today on the Bill as it stands at present, having just about completed its passage through this House. There is no mystery about the Bill's form, its content or the proposals that the Government have placed in it. It is absolutely extraordinary that, after all the words that have been used in arguing about the proposals, we still do not know the principal Opposition party's position. It says, "Wait and see."
I suppose that such a reaction is in itself something of an improvement from the Labour party's initial reaction to the proposals. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) described the proposals as ill thought through and ill-considered; the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) described them as daft; the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) described them as a farce. They have moved—I suppose—some way since then.
The Bill substantially reinforces not only the power but the duty of the courts in sentencing serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. The mandatory penalties at the heart of our proposals are carefully targeted at crimes of particular concern to the public: serious violent and sexual offences, domestic burglary and dealing in hard drugs.
Our proposals for honesty in sentencing will restore credibility to the court's sentence and ensure proper supervision after the offender is released. The Bill will provide more flexible and effective community penalties and new powers for the courts when dealing with mentallydisordered and juvenile offenders. Most importantly, the Bill will provide protection and


reassurance for the public and thereby help to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 21.

Division No. 41]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Eggar, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Elletson, Harold


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Emery, Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Amess, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Beggs, Roy
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Bitten, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Sir Graham
Gamier, Edward


Brooke, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Higgins, Sir Terence


Churchill, Mr
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Sir John
Hurd, Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Curry, David
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Michael


Day, Stephen
King, Tom


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George


Duncan Smith, lain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan





Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sims, Sir Roger


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Maitland, Lady Olga
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Mariow, Tony
Stem, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexlyhth)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, John
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, David
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


NOES


Alton, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Ashdown, Paddy
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Berth, A J
Rendel, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Steel, Sir David


Dafis, Cynog
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Thurnham, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obvious that the Crime (Sentences) Bill is leaving this House with a magnificent majority of 208. I hope that it would meet with the approval of everyone here if the House further along the Corridor did not interfere with the conclusions of this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although the House will admire the mathematics of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that was not a point of order.

PETITION

Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to present to the House a petition that has been signed by 1,200 constituents and others from different parts of Inverness and the highlands of Scotland. The petition calls on the Raigmore hospital NHS trust not to proceed with its proposal to levy car parking charges for those employed by and using the facilities of the hospital. The petition states:
To the House of Commons. The petition of staff, patients and visitors of Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, declares that the NHS trust management are considering the introduction of car parking charges. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support their opposition to such an imposition. And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Firearms Control (Mr. Thomas McIntyre)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

Dr. John Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of the tragic murder of one of my constituents, Thomas McIntyre. The subject of the debate—although the murder occurred seven years ago—is timeous. The debate comes relatively soon after our discussions in this House on handguns, and immediately prior to a discussion of the firearms legislation in another place.
Only two short months ago, I spent several hours, as did many other hon. Members, with the parents of the children tragically massacred at Dunblane. Those parents were in Parliament for the opening of the debate on handguns, and I, like many others, was deeply moved not only by their circumstances but by their dignity and courage in the face of so much suffering.
At that stage, I and many of my hon. Friends—along with some Government Members—strongly urged the Government to allow a free vote on the issue of handguns. The Government refused. They allowed a free vote on caning in schools, but not on handguns. I do not understand how the administering of a smack on the hand can be such a profound matter as to require a free vote of conscience, while the possibility of using a gun to take a life is less profound in the Government's eyes.
At that time, my constituents wrote to me in sackfuls to support the banning of handguns. However, that was partly influenced by the fact that many of them had shared in a tragedy of our own, long before Dunblane. Everyone has heard of the tragic events of last March in Dunblane, but not many will have heard of the death of Thomas McIntyre, a 19-year-old student teacher from my constituency who was brutally murdered after a night out with some friends, after he had gone to the assistance of a young woman who had been hit by a vehicle as she crossed a road in Glasgow.
My constituent, Thomas McIntyre, was shot and died in a Glasgow street at 1.40 am as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, at the hands of a gun owner, Alan Parkhill, with no history of mental illness, who was a gun club member, trained to shoot, with a legally held licence.
Thomas McIntyre and Alan Parkhill were two young men buried on the same day, one having been murdered and the murderer in turn having committed suicide with his own gun immediately afterwards: two tragedies; two families in grief; two communities in grief.
A public inquiry was held in Glasgow into both deaths, during six days in September and October 1990, before Sheriff Brian S. Lockhart. The findings of that inquiry hold no comfort for those who would have us believe that the potential misuse of widely available handguns can somehow be curbed—or, in the case of Dunblane, should have been curbed—by police action in searching criminal records, or by psychological profiling or other personal or personality searches.
That detailed report, nearly seven years ago, concluded that no reasonable precautions could have been taken by the chief officer of police or by the police themselves in terms of the then legislation, or by any other person or body,


whereby the deaths might have been avoided. The actions of the gunman could not have been predicted, and they remain to this day unexplained.
The sheriff directed that the transcript of the evidence to the inquiry and its determination be remitted to the Secretary of State with the recommendation that he refer them to the Firearms Consultative Committee for consideration, and that the committee give particular attention to the age or ages at which persons should be permitted to hold a firearms certificate relating to weapons of different calibres; the number of firearms and the amount of ammunition that any member of the public should be entitled legally to possess; and all aspects of the storage of firearms and ammunition owned by members of the public. That was in 1990.
The families of both Thomas McIntyre and Alan Parkhill sat through the proceedings in court numb and unbelieving while the events of the tragedy unfolded. Both families—of the victim and of the murderer—were bewildered, precisely because the action of the gunman Alan Parkhill was apparently so out of character.
Alan Parkhill first obtained a shotgun certificate when he was only 16 years of age, and a firearms certificate when he was only 17. That certificate permitted him to acquire a .22 pistol, a .357 revolver and a .22 rimfire rifle. He made application for a firearm certificate under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968.
In accordance with normal procedure, the police checked criminal records, special branch records and divisional intelligence. The report from the sergeant on the application said that the applicant had been a member of a pistol club for some time, that he seemed to be very knowledgeable about firearms, and, moreover, that he had gone to some considerable expense to ensure the security of the firearms that he intended to purchase. He was a responsible gun club member. He seemed to be a sensible young man, and had the full approval of his parents, which had been sought for his application.
Alan Parkhill and his family were of good character. They were not listed in divisional intelligence officers' files, and there were no local objections to the granting of the certificate. It had been ascertained that he was a member of the Glasgow and District pistol club and the Balornock rifle and pistol club, and that he would use only authorised ranges. After the necessary checks had been made, the applicant was granted his firearms certificate.
When Mr. Parkhill reached 18 years of age, the certificate was altered to allow him to possess one .357 Smith and Wesson revolver and to purchase or acquire one 3 mm pistol, one .357 revolver, one .223 rifle, one .22 pistol and one .22 rimfire rifle, with appropriate ammunition.
Applications were received from the applicant for renewal of his certificate every three years. The same investigations were carried out by the police at the time of each application for renewal as had been carried out when the application was first presented.
In 1989, after normal checks had been carried out by the police, a certificate was issued that allowed Mr. Parkhill to possess—I apologise for going through the list, but it is illustrative—one .357 Smith and Wesson revolver, one .22 Winchester rifle, one .45 Colt pistol, one .22 Colt revolver, one 9 mm Browning pistol and one .223 Remington rifle, as well as 600 rounds of .223 ammunition, 600 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, 500 rounds

of .44 ammunition, 500 rounds of .45 ammunition, 400 rounds of .38/.357 ammunition and 1,200 rounds of .22 ammunition. He was also given authority to acquire a further .44 pistol.
At the time of Parkhill's death, the police accounted for all those weapons, with the exception of the .45 colt pistol, which could not be traced. A Crossman pistol, for which no certificate had been obtained, was found in his possession. The ammunition found at Alan Parkhill's house at the time of his death—apart from six rounds—was within permitted limits. Once again, it was perfectly legal. In view of that list, it may surprise some hon. Members to know that Strathclyde police considered the firearms held by Alan Parkhill at the time of his death to be normal for an average gun enthusiast.
Mr. Parkhill was described by witnesses at the inquiry—people who knew him—as friendly, unaggressive, calm, shy, even-tempered, quiet, well-mannered, respectful, easy-going, level-headed, funny, humorous, a nice guy and a normal bloke. He was described as a diligent and conscientious worker, keen to better himself, a very competent shooter and extremely safety conscious.
After the Hungerford shootings, Mr. Parkhill wrote to the secretary of the Shooters' Rights Association applying for membership. He said:
I realise that now is the time to safeguard shooting in Britain so I offer my full support to the case and hopefully my Club.
On the evening of 17 March 1990, Mr. Parkhill, the easy-going boy of good character, fully responsible, shy and retiring, set out to celebrate a friend's birthday. To celebrate a birthday, he took with him a 9 mm Browning pistol, two magazines of ammunition, some loose live rounds and a sheath knife. He then consumed from 5.30 pm onwards a minimum of four cans of Budweiser, six pints of lager and two gin and tonics. Unsurprisingly, he could not remember where he had parked his Land Rover. However, he did go behind the wheel that fateful evening.
A young girl, Tracey Patrick, and her friend, David Carracher, had been walking in Sauchiehall street, Glasgow, and had decided to cross Renfield street in the early hours of the morning. They stepped from between parked vehicles and walked into the path of the Land Rover driven by Parkhill, who braked and swerved. Young David was able to jump clear, but the Land Rover struck Tracey Patrick. As she lay unconscious in front of the van, my young constituent Thomas McIntyre, a good Samaritan, ran to her assistance.
As Thomas approached to assist Tracey, Alan Parkhill got out of the Land Rover and drew a 9 mm Browning pistol. As Thomas McIntyre ran across the road to help Tracey Patrick, the gunman of almost impeccable character stood with both arms stretched in front of him and with his feet apart fired his pistol at Thomas. The first shot struck Thomas above the right wrist. As Thomas turned to run from the gunman, Parkhill fired four further shots into his back. He died immediately. One bullet went through his body and struck a taxi driver. Parkhill fired further shots, injuring several others, before placing the pistol close to his right temple, firing the gun and penetrating his brain.
Alan Parkhill was 24 years old when he committed murder and then killed himself. He was said to have been, as I hinted, an able young man, capable of conversing on a range of subjects and interests with a wide variety of people. He was not grossly affected by the fascination of weapons. Thomas McIntyre was murdered for being a


good Samaritan. He was a bright young man of 19, with a great future as a teacher in front of him. The sudden death of one so young brings not only grief but numbness and bewilderment. Why such a waste of life and talent? My sympathy, and that of the constituency, went out, and still goes out, to the family of young Thomas McIntyre, in particular.
That was seven years ago, in 1990, so why am I raising the matter after all this time? Why did I decide that it might be of use to the House? Why did Thomas McIntyre's family allow—indeed, encourage—me to raise it? Does it matter after all those years? I raise it because it is a fulcrum of one of the major arguments about handguns. It gives a timely reminder of the danger of widespread availability of handguns. Perhaps above all, it brings home to us the tragic effects.
The case illustrates the massacres of Dunblane and Hungerford in microcosm, in a quieter but no less tragic way. However, the case of Thomas McIntyre and the character of Alan Parkhill, to the eternal bewilderment of everyone involved, also remind us that no amount of character checking, psychological analysis, searching of records or personalty probing can guarantee that tragedies such as this, in which handguns are used to maim and kill, will not happen if handguns are widely available. It gives the lie to those who say that Hungerford or Dunblane would not have happened had the police done their job correctly, or that it should be possible to predict that this or that man may turn out to be a mass murderer.
As the sheriff in the report of the case seven years ago quite specifically stated, the actions of young Alan Parkhill could not have been predicted—indeed, to this day, they remain unexplained.
I have heard it said that, in the hands of a mad man or a drunk, a car or a knife could also maim or kill. It is sometimes said that that possession is also unpredictable. That is to miss one central point. A handgun is not a car, a knife or a rifle. Of course all can be used to kill. But unlike a car, a handgun was not designed for the utility of transporting, or of any other utility. It was designed to be an anti-personnel weapon. Unlike a knife, it has no social utility in essence in its beginning, other than an anti-personnel weapon.
The case reminds us that it is so easy to ignore lessons. I trust that the Minister will concentrate on the difficulty of predictability. The sheriff's report specified directly that his determinations be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and recommended that he in turn should refer them to the Firearms Consultative Committee, to give particular regard to various matters that I have mentioned. He, the Secretary of State, was to refer the report to that committee, and he did so. The report was read and noted. As far as I am aware, no action was taken.
The issue has relevance to the debate on handguns, and I have raised it in honour of the parents of the two young men who tragically died. Both their families have encountered tragedy, grievous losses and bewilderment. Both families realise, to their eternal regret, how it is not possible to predict the actions of anyone who holds handguns. We owe it to the two families not to forget the horror and the implications of such a tragic event. Perhaps, in discharging that debt, we serve a wider purpose in alerting the public once more to the dangers of handguns.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on raising such an important issue. I note that interest has been shown in the hon. Gentleman's concerns by the presence of other hon. Members, especially that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). Throughout the debate, the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) has been in her place. The same must be said of the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Other hon. Members are present, but they have not been in their places throughout the debate.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North has clearly raised a matter of importance when at this hour of the night, after all the business that has been dealt with, there should still be sufficient concern for Members to be present.
Seven years have passed since the extremely tragic incident to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, I express deep sympathy to all the victims and to the relatives of everybody involved. Having seen the very thorough report of the fatal accident inquiry, chaired by Sheriff Lockhart, I agree that what happened on that tragic night in March 1990 raises issues which remain of great significance as we consider further changes to the law on the possession of firearms in the wake of the tragic incident in Dunblane.
I wholly share the view about unpredictability. Time and again, both I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have said that there is no measure that any Government could take that would guarantee that there would never be another tragic incident. We can only do our best and endeavour to learn lessons from past events.
I want to concentrate on the three issues to which the hon. Gentleman specifically alluded and which the sheriff picked out for detailed consideration by the Firearms Consultative Committee. The Firearms (Amendment) Bill is currently under consideration in another place, and, if I have time, I want also to discuss the way in which our proposals in that Bill will affect the specific concerns mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that they will make an important difference.
Before doing so, I believe that it would help the House if I briefly described the circumstances in which Alan Parkhill came to be in possession of the pistol and ammunition that he used to shoot Mr. McIntyre and wound others. As we have heard, and as the inquiry report makes quite clear—and as the hon. Gentleman emphasised forcefully tonight—Mr. Parkhill was perfectly legally entitled to own those weapons. He had a firearms certificate for them that was issued, perfectly properly, by the police.
Under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, it is an offence for anybody to be in possession of a firearm and ammunition in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. In having the pistol and the ammunition with him in his car on that night, Mr. Parkhill was committing just such an offence. I thoroughly concur with the great question mark introduced by the hon. Gentleman as to what that sort of equipment had to do with celebrating a friend's birthday.
The police certificate authorised him to purchase the pistol and ammunition, and, indeed, to keep them at home. As the inquiry report says, his certificate also allowed him to own one other pistol, two revolvers, two rifles, and a total


of 3,800 rounds of ammunition of different types and calibre, depending on their suitability for use with the particular weapons involved. On the night of the shooting, Mr. Parkhill had with him one of his pistols—a Browning 9 mm—two magazines of ammunition for it and some loose rounds.
Mr. Parkhill first obtained a gun licence at the age of 16, when he applied to Strathclyde police for a shotgun certificate. He applied for and obtained a firearms certificate the following year, at the age of 17—the youngest age at which, by law, a person may purchase a firearm. In applying for that certificate, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in renewing it subsequently every three years as he was required to do, Mr. Parkhill told the police that he wanted firearms for target shooting. That was true. Mr. Parkhill was a member of local shooting clubs—the Glasgow and District rifle and pistol club, and the Balornock rifle and pistol club—which were approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Firearms Acts, which were run perfectly properly, and about which the police had no reason to feel any concern.
The law requires that anybody who wants a firearms certificate should have a good reason for being in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Home Office guidance to the police on administering firearms controls makes it clear that target shooting is a good reason, and it has been recognised as such ever since systematic firearms controls were first introduced in this country in 1920.
The sheriff's report describes two other occasions before the night of the shootings when Mr. Parkhill had a gun with him in public; and it also emerged after the shootings that one of his guns was missing. I want to make it clear that none of those matters had been reported to the police. As far as they knew, Mr. Parkhill was punctilious in adhering to all the rules and regulations relating to his possession of firearms and ammunition and they had no reason to be concerned that he posed a danger to anybody.
Sheriff Lockhart concluded in his report:
there were no reasonable precautions which could have been taken by the chief officer of police in terms of the current legislation"—
that is, the legislation then in force—
whereby the deaths might have been averted".
I fully agree with that assessment.
The police investigation of the shootings was unable to uncover why Mr. Parkhill acted as he did. The sheriff could not shed any new light on the matter. He also concluded that Mr. Parkhill had not taken advantage of any loophole in the law to obtain guns or ammunition.
The sheriff went on to conclude that the Secretary of State for Scotland should refer three specific topics to the Firearms Consultative Committee: the age or ages at which persons should be permitted to hold a firearms certificate; the number of firearms and the amount of ammunition which any member of the public should be entitled to possess; and all aspects of the storage of firearms and ammunition owned by members of the public.
We shared the sheriffs concern, and the Government asked the committee to discuss these three points. It did that in some detail, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that it

concluded that there should be no change to the current arrangements. I hope I misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman; he appeared at one point to be saying that the report was not acted on. In fact, the report recommended no change, so there were no changes recommended on which to act.

Dr. Reid: I said that the report was considered and noted, and that no further action was taken.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The committee published these conclusions in 1992 in chapter 5 of its third annual report. There is, of course, a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
On age limits, there are, as the Committee said, very detailed provisions in the Firearms Acts. The minimum age for purchasing or hiring a firearm of any kind is 17. The law does provide for people of less than that age to be in possession of firearms and ammunition without having bought them, but it imposes significant restrictions. I gave the Standing Committee a detailed description of age limits, which it would not be profitable to repeat tonight in the limited time available.
On the quantities of firearms and ammunition which people should be allowed to own, the Firearms Consultative Committee concluded that the present arrangements are adequate. I agree with that conclusion. In addition, the greater controls imposed by the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will place important new restrictions upon the ownership of legally held firearms.
As far as security is concerned, the Committee correctly pointed out that the law imposes a requirement on all owners of firearms and shotguns to keep them secure from theft at all times.
It is tempting to draw parallels between this case and that of Thomas Hamilton. Both involved the tragic shooting of innocent people by men who were perfectly legally entitled to possess large calibre handguns. There are, however, some differences. There was nothing to indicate that Mr. Parkhill was not fit to be entrusted with a firearm. There was no evidence that he had planned his crime. There was, as the hon. Gentleman kept saying tonight, no apparent motive. There were no grounds to refuse the granting of a firearm certificate to him. All these concerns, however, were identified by Lord Cullen as applying to Thomas Hamilton.
I therefore accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise: that there is no easy method of predicting who may act out of character, and no easy method of preventing a tragedy such as Dunblane. But there is a major responsibility on Government to do their best to make sure that these things do not happen. Lessons have been learnt from Dunblane. We have had an independent examination, the vast majority of whose conclusions we have accepted.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his concerns so eloquently tonight, and I apologise to at least one of his hon. Friends who was indeed present throughout the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.